One of the most prevalent characteristics of humanity as a whole is the tendency to make judgements of culture and collective identity based on physical appearance. In The Bluest Eye and Lipstick Jihad, there are countless examples in which having different physical traits can make a world of difference socioeconomically.
The entire concept of race as we know it is a manmade concept; it is not something that intrinsically existed. The need humanity faces to group and categorize every corner of society trickles down to create races. As a result, the opportunity for social mobility and advancement is spread unequally by race simply because it goes far into determining some aspects of socioeconomic status. For example, in The Bluest Eye, the main character always aspires for a better life and portrays her goals as "getting a set of blue eyes." Even when Pecola does get the blue eyes, or at least in her imagination, she is constantly stuck with insecurities about them. It just shows that when one is bred to feel insecure about their upbringing, their physical traits while suffering a lousy socioeconomic status, that attitude never leaves. It shows the importance of physical characteristics in self-worth.
Lipstick Jihad further supports this notion by citing the countless instances in which the author is seen in Tehran as a transplant Iranian; they can recognize her American background simply in the way she carries herself, whether it be while eating at the mall, walking down the street, or speaking to the Shah. Furthermore, a unique physical apperance in comparison to the rest of the surrounding society for whatever reason causes the unique person to feel socially vulnerable and be ostracized by the rest. The author chronicles her struggle of assimilating into orthodox Iranian culture, and that is heavily due to physical characteristics, although some are subtle.
The point is, discrimination and characterization based on physical traits has been rampant across humanity for centuries. Some examples include the Spanish Inquisition to get the Moors out of Europe, Hitler's disdain for people of Jewish descent, or even the daily struggles Detroiters face. Due to skin color and other specific physical characteristics, society has placed an identity upon people; people are black, brown, yellow, white, etc. Diseased or disabled people are put into colonies to wither amongst their weaknesses, like lepers and nudists. Whether it is right or wrong is a different issue entirely. However, it is obvious that we not only identify but also characterize people by physical characteristics, often with toxic side effects.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Regarding the Pain of Others
Susan Sontag compares and contrasts photography against other forms of art in her book Regarding the Pain of Others. In doing so, there are several recurring ideas that Sontag introduces. Particularly, Sontag uses a host of photographs depicting tragedy and war and compares them against similar images that are not photographs, to find some stark differences.
When it comes to a painting versus a photograph of something like a gory battlefield landscape, Sontag believes it is evident that the painting and photograph will evoke different responses. In Chapter 5, Sontag claims that photographs of devastation are transformative elements of culture primarily because they are taken through a single perspective. In other words, each photograph of the same thing from different angles and by different people would have separate meanings because a photograph is a measure of an experience and does not generate an opinion unless it is put into a context by the photographer. When seen, the photograph can elicit a certain beauty in the eye of each beholder. However, each photograph has a limited boundary to its interpretation because it has a sense of declared reality to it. This is not the case with a painting of the same thing because a painting is meant to and can evoke a different response within each viewer. If a photograph attempts to do the same, it receives criticism because it carries with it an element of brutal and declared reality. Therefore, wartime photographs are aesthetically challenged although they could be considered beautiful in bits and pieces.
Yet because of the concreteness of the devastation shown, a wartime photograph elicits a response of compassion and is more likely able to force the common viewer into taking some action. A wartime photograph is special compared to other works of art because it not only serves as a record of what actually has happened, regardless of how it is spun based on the photographer's perspective, but it also forces some sort of action because of its unquestioned reality. Based on the way it is presented, a wartime photograph can elicit different social responses. For instance, if a photograph depicts the death of someone similar to the viewer, then the viewer will fight against such an event from ever happening again. Conversely, if the death shown is considered favorable to the particular viewer, then that viewer will fight to make such events occur in the future. A painting of the same is incapable of causing social response unless it is backed up by photograph, at least in our times.
This ties in perfectly with Sontag's concept in Chapter 8. She claims photographs are memories of our past, but they tell each person different things that all fall under the same contextual umbrella. A wartime photograph shows an image of someone's hell, but the photograph doesn't tell each viewer to do the same thing about it. She claims this may be due to memory and not thinking. In other words, the photograph viewer immediately relates the picture to something in his memory, if capable of doing so, and acts based on that rather than isolating the picture for what it is by itself. Such devastating photographs show us the bounds to which humans are willing to go to get their way. They give us a greater awareness of what to expect at any time from any other person; wartime photographs thus increase our own social vigilance. Therefore, a photograph still can make a social statement although it is clearly defined by only the parameters the photographer wants us to know.
When it comes to a painting versus a photograph of something like a gory battlefield landscape, Sontag believes it is evident that the painting and photograph will evoke different responses. In Chapter 5, Sontag claims that photographs of devastation are transformative elements of culture primarily because they are taken through a single perspective. In other words, each photograph of the same thing from different angles and by different people would have separate meanings because a photograph is a measure of an experience and does not generate an opinion unless it is put into a context by the photographer. When seen, the photograph can elicit a certain beauty in the eye of each beholder. However, each photograph has a limited boundary to its interpretation because it has a sense of declared reality to it. This is not the case with a painting of the same thing because a painting is meant to and can evoke a different response within each viewer. If a photograph attempts to do the same, it receives criticism because it carries with it an element of brutal and declared reality. Therefore, wartime photographs are aesthetically challenged although they could be considered beautiful in bits and pieces.
Yet because of the concreteness of the devastation shown, a wartime photograph elicits a response of compassion and is more likely able to force the common viewer into taking some action. A wartime photograph is special compared to other works of art because it not only serves as a record of what actually has happened, regardless of how it is spun based on the photographer's perspective, but it also forces some sort of action because of its unquestioned reality. Based on the way it is presented, a wartime photograph can elicit different social responses. For instance, if a photograph depicts the death of someone similar to the viewer, then the viewer will fight against such an event from ever happening again. Conversely, if the death shown is considered favorable to the particular viewer, then that viewer will fight to make such events occur in the future. A painting of the same is incapable of causing social response unless it is backed up by photograph, at least in our times.
This ties in perfectly with Sontag's concept in Chapter 8. She claims photographs are memories of our past, but they tell each person different things that all fall under the same contextual umbrella. A wartime photograph shows an image of someone's hell, but the photograph doesn't tell each viewer to do the same thing about it. She claims this may be due to memory and not thinking. In other words, the photograph viewer immediately relates the picture to something in his memory, if capable of doing so, and acts based on that rather than isolating the picture for what it is by itself. Such devastating photographs show us the bounds to which humans are willing to go to get their way. They give us a greater awareness of what to expect at any time from any other person; wartime photographs thus increase our own social vigilance. Therefore, a photograph still can make a social statement although it is clearly defined by only the parameters the photographer wants us to know.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Midterm Research Paper
For my research paper, I would like to explain how advertising as we know it in its current state has been a vital key to the corruption of the corporate world. I will first begin with a brief synopsis of how corporations came up to prominence and what they originally intended to do. From there, I will then track the advertising techniques corporations took at each point. In doing so, I hope to demonstrate the devolution of corporations from their original humble intentions to their current states of controversy and periodic but widespread social disapproval.
Of course, there must be a reason why corporations have become so vastly disapproved. Somewhere along the line, I will detail the idea that advertising in itself became a corporation, not just a business. As a result, media and advertising are growing more powerful to the extent that corporations can be scrutinized to the extreme. Because of it, corporations cannot afford to let out the whole truth and have thus slowly chipped away at conveying their whole truths. This has cast the accurate impression that there is now a web of corporate lies in which the public is unknowingly entangled.
I want to support my claims using cited and reliable research sources. Therefore, I will use scholarly resources such as Google Scholar as well as scholarly search engines such as ProQuest and other systems given by the Wayne State library network. I will also try to look through business journals online, such as the Wall Street Journal, to further corroborate my argument. With proper evidence to back up my claims, I think I can write an effective midterm research paper.
Of course, there must be a reason why corporations have become so vastly disapproved. Somewhere along the line, I will detail the idea that advertising in itself became a corporation, not just a business. As a result, media and advertising are growing more powerful to the extent that corporations can be scrutinized to the extreme. Because of it, corporations cannot afford to let out the whole truth and have thus slowly chipped away at conveying their whole truths. This has cast the accurate impression that there is now a web of corporate lies in which the public is unknowingly entangled.
I want to support my claims using cited and reliable research sources. Therefore, I will use scholarly resources such as Google Scholar as well as scholarly search engines such as ProQuest and other systems given by the Wayne State library network. I will also try to look through business journals online, such as the Wall Street Journal, to further corroborate my argument. With proper evidence to back up my claims, I think I can write an effective midterm research paper.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
On Photography
In On Photography, Susan Sontag presents the hobby of taking photographs as a practice with deep cultural and sociological implications. Particularly, Sontag analyzes the morality of photography under sexual, psychological, and physical contexts. In doing so, Sontag raises points about photography that most people would never have even thought. Ultimately, I think Sontag's arguments about photography can be linked in parallel to the minds behind modern advertising.
On Photography begins by critiquing photographs as "more memorable than moving images, because they are a neat slice of time, not a flow." At first it details paintings and other succinct visual forms of art as things with "essential quality" whereas a photograph is "a more innocent, and therefore more accurate, relation to visible reality." She thus implies that essential quality pertains to an ability to incite different interpretations among different people. Other visual mediums give people more to imagine because it is an image that comes purely out of a painter's/artist's mind, whereas a photograph is a representation of what the photographer wants viewers to see. As a result, photographs are more absolute and concrete than other forms of art. Thus, they are much easier to remember because the viewer has to see everything in the photograph to understand it, but a painting viewer chooses what he sees in it.
While the viewer of a photograph is limited in the ways he can imagine it, the actual photographer has just the opposite. Unlike the viewer, the photographer actually experiences his photographs. The photographer chooses what he wishes to capture. In a world of mass production, the camera salesmen insist that photography "demands no skill or expert knowledge...the machine is all knowing..." Due in part to this, photograph viewers are generally desensitized to the meaning and experience the photographer had in order to take the photograph. Sontag finally makes the statement that the event of the photograph must be "named and characterized...[and] the [social] contribution of photography always follows the naming of the event." This statement only supports the idea that unlike any other form of art, photographs cannot evoke any response from their viewers although it is a representation of the photographer's thought.
Therefore, a photographer has the sole power of molding public opinion about his photographs. In its beginning, photography and all art acted as "an instrument of identification with the community and [aggrandization] of the artist as a heroic, romantic, and self-expressing ego." I think this idea ties really well with the motives of modern advertising. In the case of advertising, the advertiser is the artist, deciding what he wants the public to see about the particular point of interest. Advertising thus is not a representation of the whole context and truth. Similarly, photography is also not the whole truth because it is only one moment out of many, and does not establish context. At their best, both forms of media would make their own statements by themselves. Instead, other forces of culture and society have suppressed the power of both. Ultimately, Sontag laments that "the best of American photography has given itself over..." In all, I think Sontag makes a detailed and coherent critique of photography through her book.
On Photography begins by critiquing photographs as "more memorable than moving images, because they are a neat slice of time, not a flow." At first it details paintings and other succinct visual forms of art as things with "essential quality" whereas a photograph is "a more innocent, and therefore more accurate, relation to visible reality." She thus implies that essential quality pertains to an ability to incite different interpretations among different people. Other visual mediums give people more to imagine because it is an image that comes purely out of a painter's/artist's mind, whereas a photograph is a representation of what the photographer wants viewers to see. As a result, photographs are more absolute and concrete than other forms of art. Thus, they are much easier to remember because the viewer has to see everything in the photograph to understand it, but a painting viewer chooses what he sees in it.
While the viewer of a photograph is limited in the ways he can imagine it, the actual photographer has just the opposite. Unlike the viewer, the photographer actually experiences his photographs. The photographer chooses what he wishes to capture. In a world of mass production, the camera salesmen insist that photography "demands no skill or expert knowledge...the machine is all knowing..." Due in part to this, photograph viewers are generally desensitized to the meaning and experience the photographer had in order to take the photograph. Sontag finally makes the statement that the event of the photograph must be "named and characterized...[and] the [social] contribution of photography always follows the naming of the event." This statement only supports the idea that unlike any other form of art, photographs cannot evoke any response from their viewers although it is a representation of the photographer's thought.
Therefore, a photographer has the sole power of molding public opinion about his photographs. In its beginning, photography and all art acted as "an instrument of identification with the community and [aggrandization] of the artist as a heroic, romantic, and self-expressing ego." I think this idea ties really well with the motives of modern advertising. In the case of advertising, the advertiser is the artist, deciding what he wants the public to see about the particular point of interest. Advertising thus is not a representation of the whole context and truth. Similarly, photography is also not the whole truth because it is only one moment out of many, and does not establish context. At their best, both forms of media would make their own statements by themselves. Instead, other forces of culture and society have suppressed the power of both. Ultimately, Sontag laments that "the best of American photography has given itself over..." In all, I think Sontag makes a detailed and coherent critique of photography through her book.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
The Corporation
Michael Moore's documentary entitled The Corporation detailed the underpinnings of how a corporation works. As a documentary, The Corporation had a responsibility to show both sides of the argument, meaning the good and bad aspects of corporatism. I thought it did a commendable job trying to support all of its claims with unquestionably true evidence. Therefore, I found the documentary to be somewhat enlightening because of its accuracy. Although it blatantly opposed corporations, The Corporation actually produced a balanced argument at times.
First of all, The Corporation quotes the present-day corporation as a "legal person." In other words, everybody who is a part of the corporation is working toward the same goal of unmatched monetary success. The corporation thus works solely for profit, and everybody on board does so with that idea in mind. Therefore, the corporation is seen as one entity despite its numerous and varied people. However, all of its people are one entity only within the bounds of corporate law. If someone within the corporation has an idea that could be beneficial but leads to the corporation's demise, that person is no longer part of the corporate entity and will face consequences for it. As a result, The Corporation likens the modern corporation as a minimized form of fascism. After all, Mussolini did run the "Corporate State" government during his rule of Italy.
Yet the caustic effects of corporations only begin administratively. Beyond that, corporations are simply "machines of negative externality." According to Milton Friedman, a negative externality is an effect upon the rest of society that is hurtful but beyond the scope of the people who cause it. In many cases, environmental treatment is listed as the principal negative externality of many corporations. Some others include creating a greater rift between upper and lower classes, unnecessary competition and overproduction despite much milder demand, and complete disregard for its oppressive undertakings. Since corporations are defined by The Corporation to merely be bodies of profit, corporations work only toward that goal without considering their trails of destruction behind them. Therefore, the negative effects of corporations are treated as externalities rather than their own responsibilities.
Interestingly, all hope may not have been lost for corporations. Moore claims that corporations are completely unaware of their social tornadoes. However, the former CEO of Shell and other notable executives who run the corporate machines refute Moore saying that they do their work considering negative externalities. The only issue is that the corporations have not figured out an effective way to solve them yet. One CEO says that corporations can be their own solution to the problems they create as long as they work in conjunction with each other. I liken it to "one man's trash is another man's treasure." By establishing corporations to treat the negative externalities created by other corporations, we can harness the power of corporate focus and eliminate sets of problems. Ideally, every corporation would be treating some other corporation's mistakes, and corporations would have no negative effects upon society. The best we can do is only strive toward such a goal and at least limit the pervasiveness of negative externalities.
First of all, The Corporation quotes the present-day corporation as a "legal person." In other words, everybody who is a part of the corporation is working toward the same goal of unmatched monetary success. The corporation thus works solely for profit, and everybody on board does so with that idea in mind. Therefore, the corporation is seen as one entity despite its numerous and varied people. However, all of its people are one entity only within the bounds of corporate law. If someone within the corporation has an idea that could be beneficial but leads to the corporation's demise, that person is no longer part of the corporate entity and will face consequences for it. As a result, The Corporation likens the modern corporation as a minimized form of fascism. After all, Mussolini did run the "Corporate State" government during his rule of Italy.
Yet the caustic effects of corporations only begin administratively. Beyond that, corporations are simply "machines of negative externality." According to Milton Friedman, a negative externality is an effect upon the rest of society that is hurtful but beyond the scope of the people who cause it. In many cases, environmental treatment is listed as the principal negative externality of many corporations. Some others include creating a greater rift between upper and lower classes, unnecessary competition and overproduction despite much milder demand, and complete disregard for its oppressive undertakings. Since corporations are defined by The Corporation to merely be bodies of profit, corporations work only toward that goal without considering their trails of destruction behind them. Therefore, the negative effects of corporations are treated as externalities rather than their own responsibilities.
Interestingly, all hope may not have been lost for corporations. Moore claims that corporations are completely unaware of their social tornadoes. However, the former CEO of Shell and other notable executives who run the corporate machines refute Moore saying that they do their work considering negative externalities. The only issue is that the corporations have not figured out an effective way to solve them yet. One CEO says that corporations can be their own solution to the problems they create as long as they work in conjunction with each other. I liken it to "one man's trash is another man's treasure." By establishing corporations to treat the negative externalities created by other corporations, we can harness the power of corporate focus and eliminate sets of problems. Ideally, every corporation would be treating some other corporation's mistakes, and corporations would have no negative effects upon society. The best we can do is only strive toward such a goal and at least limit the pervasiveness of negative externalities.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
No Logo
No Logo by Naomi Klein is a book that speaks out against the pitfalls of corporate control and economy. It speaks all about the presence of anticorporatism on a large scale among the youth of the nation, possibly even the world. However, none of it would have sprouted if it were not for the seeming death grip that corporations have taken over consumers, as Klein illustrates with several examples.
One of Klein's points in the book is that corporatism and the idea of "robber baronism" began with the advent of mass production and industry. The key stimulators to the success of industry happened to be cheap labor and ever-growing corporate influence to the extent of global brainwashing. As a result, Klein is trying to emphasize that the corporate attitude breeds a ton of unrecognized negativity. At one point, Klein claims that corporations have little more than "...excitement inspired by manic renditions of globalization wear thin, revealing the cracks and fissures beneath its high-gloss facade." The "cracks and fissures" she alludes to include the presence of sweatshops, oppressed laborers who live in "designer slums", and a perhaps irreversibly deep economic divide. All of these and more are unforeseen side effects of corporatism.
Klein even goes on to say that corporatism has led to an emphasis on brand-name recognition. Through the brand-name, corporations could define themselves beyond the name of the company itself by virtue of a logo. Although the logo should supposedly serve as a static emblem of the company, Klein writes that it has instead created the entire marketing and advertising industry. Corporations have thus created an industry out of a need to upkeep the brand name.
However, the point here is that even the corporation's idea of creating an industry to publicize its product's quality is vulnerable. Although a corporation with a recognizable brand-name seems insurmountable, the "brand's death" is always looming. Keeping a brand name is costly, and a result the money gone into generating publicity is money that could have been used to upgrade and maintain a high level of quality. Therefore, someone else has the potential to create the same product or one even better than that of the corporation without many of the costs, creating bargains against the corporate. Consumers gradually started to like the idea of the bargain over the corporate. Soon enough, people rationalized that if corporations were "desperate enough to compete with no-names, then clearly the whole concept of branding had lost its currency." The corporation and the brand eventually did manage to rebound, but Klein writes with such an overwhelming tone against corporatism that it is easy to understand that corporations are far from perfect because they are most vulnerable at their pinnacles of productivity and success. She is ultimately trying to say that corporatism is a road the economy should not take.
One of Klein's points in the book is that corporatism and the idea of "robber baronism" began with the advent of mass production and industry. The key stimulators to the success of industry happened to be cheap labor and ever-growing corporate influence to the extent of global brainwashing. As a result, Klein is trying to emphasize that the corporate attitude breeds a ton of unrecognized negativity. At one point, Klein claims that corporations have little more than "...excitement inspired by manic renditions of globalization wear thin, revealing the cracks and fissures beneath its high-gloss facade." The "cracks and fissures" she alludes to include the presence of sweatshops, oppressed laborers who live in "designer slums", and a perhaps irreversibly deep economic divide. All of these and more are unforeseen side effects of corporatism.
Klein even goes on to say that corporatism has led to an emphasis on brand-name recognition. Through the brand-name, corporations could define themselves beyond the name of the company itself by virtue of a logo. Although the logo should supposedly serve as a static emblem of the company, Klein writes that it has instead created the entire marketing and advertising industry. Corporations have thus created an industry out of a need to upkeep the brand name.
However, the point here is that even the corporation's idea of creating an industry to publicize its product's quality is vulnerable. Although a corporation with a recognizable brand-name seems insurmountable, the "brand's death" is always looming. Keeping a brand name is costly, and a result the money gone into generating publicity is money that could have been used to upgrade and maintain a high level of quality. Therefore, someone else has the potential to create the same product or one even better than that of the corporation without many of the costs, creating bargains against the corporate. Consumers gradually started to like the idea of the bargain over the corporate. Soon enough, people rationalized that if corporations were "desperate enough to compete with no-names, then clearly the whole concept of branding had lost its currency." The corporation and the brand eventually did manage to rebound, but Klein writes with such an overwhelming tone against corporatism that it is easy to understand that corporations are far from perfect because they are most vulnerable at their pinnacles of productivity and success. She is ultimately trying to say that corporatism is a road the economy should not take.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Adorno/Horkheimer & Ohman Response
After reading both The Culture Industry by Adorno & Horkheimer and Selling Culture by Ohman, I realized that both were centered around the theme of staunch capitalism. Particularly, both articles carried a very contrasting attitude to capitalist theory. Adorno & Horkheimer fiercely oppose the implications of capitalism, whereas Ohman is much more open to capitalism being the dominant economic mechanism of society despite potential pitfalls using several explicit arguments.
Sure, I may be a little biased as a reader simply because I think the benefits outweigh the perils when it comes to capitalism. However, The Culture Industry does not challenge my views primarily because it often uses a similar argument and points out no alternative. Since the article comes from an argumentative and rebellious standpoint, The Culture Industry must explicitly offer an alternative than the status quo. By no means do I think that capitalism is a foolproof theory. In fact, even Selling Culture contains an entire section in which it lists the potential crises of capitalism. The philosophy is plagued by the fact that "...workers experienced every day...[exclusion] from the expansion of leisure...that the growth of the economy might have made available to all." Also, "Business was extraordinarily risky...drew new competitiors to the field..." Capitalist economy then suffered from "...suicidal overproduction of specific goods..." and a phenomenon in which "...profits were falling..."
When each of the quoted crises is examined in isolation, capitalism certainly does not seem to have much supporting it. However, the passage claims that all of these crises work in tandem and cyclize capitalism. Workers would initially suffer from the overwork due to the increase in production ordered by investing capitalists. The success of the capitalists is antithetical to the plight of the workers, and that success brings more capitalists to the field to compete. As a result of competition, every capitalist tries to one-up the other, and this leads to excess production. The subsequent surplus then reduces the capitalists' ability to profit because prices become lower but costs stay unchanged. The lower prices benefit the workers and ultimately help expand a comfortable middle class, something that benefits society. Thus, this article actually praises capitalism while presenting a potential opposing viewpoint with the four crises. Such an opposing viewpoint is not apparent in The Culture Industry, as it only repeatedly refers to capitalism negatively with phrases such as "constant sameness" and "exclusion of the new" without offering a picture of something better. Therefore, Selling Culture is milder and a little easier to accept as true.
Yet it is not to say that The Culture Industry is wrong. At one point, both articles make similar statements about the role of advertising in capitalism. The Culture Industry claims that things, whether technically necessary or not, reach the public consciousness as necessary by exhaustive advertising, something considered "...the trick, the isolated repeatable device..." Therefore, capitalism is seen as highly manipulative of social tendencies. Selling Culture also refers to capitalism as "...the hegemonic process..." but says it is a product of "...widespread, active consent more than force of manipulation." Thus, both articles accurately depict the results of capitalism, but it seems that The Culture Industry is written to a greater degree of extreme thought than Selling Culture because it does not use some form of fresh reasoning to show that capitalism is not the method to follow. Meanwhile, Selling Culture has a stronger argument because it even uses the opposing viewpoint to construct a positive argument for itself. The key difference in both writers' philosophies shows, but Ohman's is more well-supported.
Sure, I may be a little biased as a reader simply because I think the benefits outweigh the perils when it comes to capitalism. However, The Culture Industry does not challenge my views primarily because it often uses a similar argument and points out no alternative. Since the article comes from an argumentative and rebellious standpoint, The Culture Industry must explicitly offer an alternative than the status quo. By no means do I think that capitalism is a foolproof theory. In fact, even Selling Culture contains an entire section in which it lists the potential crises of capitalism. The philosophy is plagued by the fact that "...workers experienced every day...[exclusion] from the expansion of leisure...that the growth of the economy might have made available to all." Also, "Business was extraordinarily risky...drew new competitiors to the field..." Capitalist economy then suffered from "...suicidal overproduction of specific goods..." and a phenomenon in which "...profits were falling..."
When each of the quoted crises is examined in isolation, capitalism certainly does not seem to have much supporting it. However, the passage claims that all of these crises work in tandem and cyclize capitalism. Workers would initially suffer from the overwork due to the increase in production ordered by investing capitalists. The success of the capitalists is antithetical to the plight of the workers, and that success brings more capitalists to the field to compete. As a result of competition, every capitalist tries to one-up the other, and this leads to excess production. The subsequent surplus then reduces the capitalists' ability to profit because prices become lower but costs stay unchanged. The lower prices benefit the workers and ultimately help expand a comfortable middle class, something that benefits society. Thus, this article actually praises capitalism while presenting a potential opposing viewpoint with the four crises. Such an opposing viewpoint is not apparent in The Culture Industry, as it only repeatedly refers to capitalism negatively with phrases such as "constant sameness" and "exclusion of the new" without offering a picture of something better. Therefore, Selling Culture is milder and a little easier to accept as true.
Yet it is not to say that The Culture Industry is wrong. At one point, both articles make similar statements about the role of advertising in capitalism. The Culture Industry claims that things, whether technically necessary or not, reach the public consciousness as necessary by exhaustive advertising, something considered "...the trick, the isolated repeatable device..." Therefore, capitalism is seen as highly manipulative of social tendencies. Selling Culture also refers to capitalism as "...the hegemonic process..." but says it is a product of "...widespread, active consent more than force of manipulation." Thus, both articles accurately depict the results of capitalism, but it seems that The Culture Industry is written to a greater degree of extreme thought than Selling Culture because it does not use some form of fresh reasoning to show that capitalism is not the method to follow. Meanwhile, Selling Culture has a stronger argument because it even uses the opposing viewpoint to construct a positive argument for itself. The key difference in both writers' philosophies shows, but Ohman's is more well-supported.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)