December 17, 2004

• Well, when applied to America specifically there's a problem. We're a country where many citizens have very large personal debts and where spending is seemingly required for recreation (people here rarely say, take walks). There's a lot to it, although there are a lot of anti-consumerist tools out there. In fact, I got out of my way to not be associated with them because they are really quite embarassing.
• Brace yourself. "distinction.. distintion.. distinction.." ... Pierre Bourdieu I KNEW it was coming.
• Interesting link; thanks. There are some really nice insights and arguments here: Yeah, the market sure does do a good job of responding to consumer demand for anti-consumerist products and literature. Yeah, anti-consumerist art can drive consumerism. But the article kind of falls apart in a couple of areas: 1. For one thing, none of this stuff is remotely as significant as the writer thinks it is. Ours is a consumer culture dominated by Wal-Mart and Disney and Procter & Gamble and their ilk; it is simply not true that "the critique of mass culture has been one of the most powerful forces driving consumerism for more than 40 years." And I have a pretty hard time swallowing a line like, "Anti-consumerism has become one of the most important cultural forces in millennial North American life, across every social class and demographic." I mean, our society worships things like bling-obsessed rap culture and Donald Trump's TV show, The Apprentice -- not The Nation and the films of Mike Leigh. (Canada, I'm sure, is somewhat better than the U.S. in this regard, but I'll bet only somewhat.) 2. The writer concludes that we need to stop relying on personal and cultural politics to curb consumer culture, and instead push for legislative action. Does this guy really think politicians elected with Disney's and Wal-Mart's and Procter & Gamble's money are going to get behind legislation that undermines their sugar daddies' abilities to reap the biggest possible profits? Culture jamming still seems more likely to succeed than this, to me, at least.
• Consuming isn't bad. Consuming a lot is bad. One can hate needless consumption without being defined by it. (One should never let oneself be defined by hate.) One can't as easily consume a lot and avoid being defined by that. The situations seem pretty clearly different to me. I don't consume a lot, but if someone tried to sell me a t-shirt emblazoned with anti-consumerist messages or something, I would politely tell them to fuck off. I don't see what business the government has in taxing ads. Yes, we have a lot of ads, but the majority of them have simple technical overrides. The overrides are often incidental features of products with genuine value-- adskipping with a TiVo, adblockwing with Mozilla FireFox. Even if we have ads that call to us from walls and sing to us from our cereal boxes, we will still essentially filter it all out. By not going to malls or buying packaged cereal, if necessary. (Hey, I already do both!) America is not nearly as oversaturated with empty materialism as some Asian countries in any case. Why doesn't he write about the combination cellphone/nuclear warhead/banana fudge dispenser that's just been released in Seoul? Or the lap-pillows of kabukicho? The article is nonsense. I would much rather read Chuck Palahniuk than this author's interpretation of Fight Club. No offense, Dr. Roboto.
• Aside from parts of the last two paragraphs, I didn't read this as both an anti-culturejam and anti-consumerist screed; simply the former. I haven't read the whole book, but I wouldn't be surprised if the authors agreed with fuyugare's initial statement: "Consuming isn't bad. Consuming a lot is bad." While the effects may be overstated, and while the article does build up a straw man of an "anti-consumerist," the authors are essentially right: anti-consumerism and socially-driven consumerism is a large niche market that companies have targeted effectively. You can choose to buy local produce, drive a biodiesel car run on restaurant waste and buy union-made clothing, but it's all still a part of the capitalist system, and to say you're beating it or undermining it somehow is hypocritical. You are still consuming; you're just doing it for specific reasons, not necessarily any nobler or better than anyone else's reasons. What I can't judge from the article (because presumably it's covered in the book) is whether the authors think this is a good thing or a bad thing. Personally, I think it's a good thing that people consume things. As an economic system, capitalism does allow you choice; you couldn't buy your organic produce in a state-controlled economy if the state didn't think it was a good idea. Or union-made clothing, or companies phasing out the use of harsh petroleum-based chemicals, or what have you. And if you think, as so many do, of consumer choice as wielding economic power, then you are making a difference by buying locally and from companies you deem ethically and environmentally sound. I think the authors would rather see you drop the pretense that you're fighting the corporate and capitalist system, because you're really not. I would hope, though, that the point of The Rebel Sell is not simply that the anti-corporate consumers aren't working outside of the system as they believe they are, but rather that everyone should put as much thought into their consumer choices as the supposed anti-corporate crowd does. Whether you agree with the idea that capitalism fundamentally works as a system, of course, is something for another discussion.
• Q & A with the authors -- for a lot of your clarification needs.
• To me, they're anti-counterculture Keynesian left-wingers. Which I happen to be (tho' I'm told I have maoist tendencies). They say that a lot of "sticking it to The Man" the North American left is engaged in is, at best, misguided. What we need is realist reform of our current market economy, through the Welfare State, but on a global level. Not culture jamming or whatnot. I'm curious to see how much they are influenced by Bourdieu. They certainly don't use the N-word (neoliberalism) as much as he did at the end of his life. And because nothing excites me more than ol'fashioned competition, I ran a google survey of the number of mentions some well-known French intellectuals got on some other English-language website (I'd have used this one, but it's too young for my purpose) Foucault : 48 (-pendulum) Derrida: 52 Sartre: 61 Bourdieu: 9 pages and (antother sociologist) Durkheim: 10
• Joe Heath's homepage, complete with papers.
• I can't say how much I hate AdBusters. They are selling the tastiest Kool-Aid since Jim Jones. I don't shop at Wal-Mart, don't buy name brands, and usually walk, but you don't see me talking about how much of an activist I am. AdBusters is just another brand. The turning point for me was when they had a "corporate flag" which was the American flag with corporate logos instead of stars. On the web site they had a link to a low res pdf which was pretty blurry. If you wanted one that was higher quality they would sell you one...
• Don't forget their sneaker line. You know, consumption to further the cause of anti-consumerism.
• Still, I'd rather that the masses of consumers drink ad-busters' kool-aid than the the kool-aid peddled by nike. Conspicuous consumption is pretty much unavoidable (particularly in the US) because it has become so inmeshed with everyday life that it has lost its conspicuousness. What's called anti-consumerism is really more like conscious consumerism; trying to know the social costs of the products you buy rather than simply sticking your fingers in your ears and saying, "United Fruit is my friend."
• I believe that Adbusters and other organizations of their ilk actually do perform an important function in society by attempting to make people aware of the amount and ways in which we consume and are enticed to consume. On the other hand, I think they take themselves way too seriously, like much of the remainder of the anti-consumerist movement. Yes, life would be simpler if we all wore non-branded hemp clothing and ate non-branded free-range soylent whatever, but let's face it, it would also be very boring. As for social costs, etc., everything we do has a social cost. It is not possible to exist without some sort of social cost. Our very nature is to try and climb to the top of the human heap, which requires a certain amount of exploitation of others and their misfortunes along the way. Sure, we could be nicer about it, but a planet full of uniformly nice people would also be boring. I really view the anti-consumerism movement as more of an anti-competitive movement - they don't want people to compete for resources and ideas. I also don't think anyone is perfectly right in this matter.
• The linked article isn't all that great, but I found their Q&A to be pretty interesting so I decided to read the book. I'm about 3/4 of the way throught it. I am not sure they are completely on the money in all of their observations, but they do make an interesting case. FWIW, they do name-check Pierre Bourdieu, and Richer is absolutely spot-on about where they are coming from politically. They make this pretty clear in the Q&A.
• I've only read half the article so far, but I like it. Counterculture has become a culture, and a demographic to be marketed to. And it *is* being marketed to quite successfully. I've always found it amusing that young people who claim to be 'expressing their individuality' all look the same.
• And I suppose the old people who claim to be 'expressing their individuality' are all precious and unique snowflakes? Take your condescension and impel it up your fundament.
• What's your fucking problem, fuyugare?
• Thank god it's the weekend. How about taking a couple of days off? Get some fresh air, read a book on polite discourse.
• Sorry, I'm too busy being consumed by my hatred.
• Here is a link to another (more recent) interview about rebel sell. I also have a transcript of a recent TV interview with the authors if anyone wants that - email is in the profile. I'm waiting for santa to drop off my copy of the book. From what I have read I agree with their analysis of counter-culture so far, for me it was nose on face a looooooooong time ago. We'll see if that opinion holds once I read the book
• (From the interview beeza linked)

  “They’ve got it totally wrong. The way I see it, is that they are old lefties,” Lasn said. “They’re still running on ideas that made some sense from before the Soviet Union fell, like having more government regulation.”

  Woah. Wired, boinboing.. adbusters! One more magazine to hate!
• Someone on Metafilter mentioned that Thomas Frank, editor of The Baffler, has similar ideas. And, in fact, Heath namechecks him in at least one of the articles on his website.
• fuyu, you might try that old favorite of the sophisticated hater, smug condescension, in lieu of direct hateful confrontation. lots of folks around here you could ask for tips to get you started. (i'm joking, so please, no hate-bombs in reply, please.)
• Yeah, go check out that "Amorous George" thread. The examples are superb.
• Sorry, I'm too busy being consumed by my hatred. Next on MoFi: Hatred eats stir-fried fuyu for lunch. With fava beans and a nice chianti.