I haven't written on this list for months, first because I was out of the country for five weeks, second because I've been busily working myself out of debt for said trip ever since, and third because I'm a little shaky about how to make a reply when I receive this list in digest form. But I can sit on my hands, bite my tongue and hold my silence only so long. Just a few points for now:
*grrRl writes:
And that Maria is why Borders/B&N
> is sooooo successful**: they knew *exactly* what
> they were doing when they--especially
> Borders--appealed to our politically left leaning
> sympathies via symbolic gestures in spatial
> design, decor, book displays, hiring of personnel
> [do you know how hard it is to get a job at these
> places and how they select folks who have the
> 'right' look]? Now this, *THIS* is flexible
> capitalism at its most viciously sneaking.
> Hegemony indeed Nathan.
(Ingrid) Many thanks for your semiological insights into our socially constructed shopping reality, but I think you're full of crap, especially in your little parenthetical there. Just what is the "right" look that these most viciously sneaking of capitalists employ? My dear brother, for instance, works at the Borders in Cincinnati, a very conservative market that has very little need to appeal to our "politically left leaning sympathies," and he has had very little trouble either being hired or being well treated by the standards of that outlet, in spite of the fact that he weighs 340 lbs, has longish unruly hair and facial growth that can only charitably be described as an anti-aesthetic. He was hired and has been given a substantial amount of leeway (of course at a low wage) for the simple reason that he's extremely personable, well-read, charming, etc., such that the occasional uptight suburban customer who takes displeasure at his visage is overruled by the other customers who clearly appreciate his presence.
My point, and it's a small one, is (1) that you have done nothing to prove to me that Borders/B&N et al are any more sneaking/vicious than any other business enterprise, and (2) that Carroll is right on target regarding this notion of boycotts. If individual Borders stores are being specifically boycotted for their union-busting activities, then I'm sure that anyone on this list would agree that by all means, go ahead and boycott! But if you're just boycotting Borders in general because you think they've insidiously tapped into our left-leaning psyches, then, once again, I think you're full of crap. As someone else on this list has pointed out, retail workers are actually more likely to be able to exert their political force in these larger chains than they ever will in mom-and-pop book stores, however well the occasional small store may treat its employees. And, of course, Doug has made this argument countless times more generally, that this reflexive smaller-is-always-better attitude that many leftists have towards business has no statistical basis in the reality of workers.
I've heard a lot of stupid a noxious comments in this whole Borders debate, but perhaps the worst (now that I've had my snit with the grrRl), is that the most appropriate and subversive thing we can do is to do all our shopping through Amazon.com. Now, that's really showing our solidarity with the retail workers of America! Look, I'd love to see all these cocky and wired, irrationally exunberent investors get theirs, but if you really think that in so doing you're immamentizing the Wall Street Eschaton, you really are deluding yourself. As Carroll noted, if such a purchase makes you feel better, then by all means do it, but don't confuse that with a political act. Personally, I prefer human contact..
BTW, the union was voted down at the Cincinnati store, a dissapointing development, especially as I know several bright and decent workers there who voted it down, because they, unlike everyone on this list, felt that at least some of the points on Sr. Mgmt's memo were persuasive. The good news is that several of them have since reconsidered their vote, after finding, surprise-surprise, that mgmt. was cozening them before the vote only to come down hard on them immediately therafter. If the employees ever have a chance to vote again, the UFCW or whatever may meet with more success. After 20+ years of diminishing prospects and labor quiescence, it's going to take a lot of hard work to get retail workers to believe that they can expect better and that unions can make a positive difference.
Cheers!
Ingrid