>Brian:
>
>
>>And sometimes it's just attitude without context. If someone tells me
>>that the range of fashions available in America is just another kind
>>
>>
>of
>
>
>>uniform, an example of corporate oppression, another technique of mind
>>control, I learn a lot-- about how that person wants to be perceived.
>>That's the attitude part. The attitude evaporates once we place
>>
>>
>Western
>
>
>>consumer culture into context, i.e., showing how it offers a far
>>
>>
>greater
>
>
>>range of choices than nearly any other culture before or current.
>>
>>
>>
>
>I think the "missing context" argument applies to the above statement.
>It is true that, on the aggregate level, consumer capitalism offers more
>choices than, say, less developed or centrally planned economies. But
>that does not mean that all these choices are equally available to
>everyone who lives in a consumer capitalist society.
>
That's true, but trivially so. Of course, not everyone can afford an
$800 Prada handbag. But given the sheer amount of what most people in
this country _can_ afford, and the range of choices they have, this is
about as trivial a point as one could raise. You might as well say we
are all oppressed because we can't all afford yachts, Rolls-Royces, and
vacations on the Mir.
>In fact, consumer capitalist society is segmented into market niches,
>and within each niche individual choices are highly determined by the
>prevailing norms and styles. A person will most likely wear the kind of
>clothes that his/her peer culture expects, and other choices are simply
>not an option.
>
Yes, business tries to find what people are buying, and tries to tailor its products to fit those niches. But you are suggesting-- with all of your control-from-above rhetoric in previous posts-- that people are actually _prevented_ from buying different kinds of clothes because of corporate capitalism. I haven't tried buying any hip-hop styles lately, but if I tried, I doubt very much that I'd be prevented from doing so.
And when you say that people will "most likely wear the kind of clothes that his/her peer culture expects," then they are _limiting themselves_ more than anything else. You can't fault capitalism for _that_; it'd be true in any kind of society that offers the same degree of consumer choices and affluence.
>For example, my kid went to a HS with an "urban thug" subculture -
>basically the Goodwill and army surplus stuff. My wallet loved that,
>but when I wanted to show the kid to the civilized world, I encountered
>problems, because the kid would not wear anything else. His social life
>depended on the clothes he was wearing.
>
>Such subcultures are usually manipulated and reinforced by corporate
>advertising - which makes them even more constraining. Media and ads
>sanction fads as the prevailing norm and make them even more difficult
>to escape. My wife's son buys expensive clothes that he admittedly does
>not like that much, but he feels pressured to buy them to maintain his
>status.
>
Welcome to life as a teenager. But these are the demands of a wide range
of things, from the ever-changing standards of one's peer group to the
requirements of various social institutions. They are not, as you've
earlier claimed, the result of some nefarious all-controlling plot by
corporations to control what people say and think and wear. You're no
longer faulting corporate institutions for failing to provide variety--
now you're faulting people for failing to take advantage of the variety
that corporate institutions _do_ provide.
You say that subcultures are easily manipulated and reinforced by corporate advertising. Maybe, maybe not-- one could make an equally valid case that these subcultures arise _despite_ corporate influence, and the advertising and marketing niche-seeking is a matter of corporations trying to _catch up_ with aspects of culture that they can't control. I notice that you haven't even asked where these subcultures _come_ from. Or is it all controlled from some boardroom?
>Missing the social context in which decisions to purchase clothing are
>made can create a false sense of abundant choices where none are
>available.
>
Let me see if I follow you. You claim that people really have no
"choice" in the clothing they wear. I point out that, in Western
society (and in Japan) there is a vast array of choices that are
available to most people. You haven't rebutted this fact at all.
Instead, you claim that because people don't seem to go very far afield
in their choices, they have no choice at all.
Imagine if we were talking about food. You might start out that we have no choice in the foods we eat, as it all comes through corporate structures and advertising which creates an artificial demand for tastes and products. I reply that most supermarkets have a tremendous variety of foods, including frozen dinners, ice creams of varying quality, Middle Eastern grains like couscous, baking mixes, candies, fruits and vegetables from all around the world (and we can enjoy oranges in wintertime), whole milk, breads and bread mixes, every kind of meat (even from free-range, grain-fed animals), and much, much more. I might also point out that people can easily find specialty stores which carry even more exotic foodstuffs, and there's always the option of having pizza, Chinese, Thai, Ethiopian, and even Afghan food delivered to one's _front door_. You would reply, following your earlier logic, that because most people tend to eat the same things over and over, or what their friends like to eat, and not everyone can afford Beluga caviar, we really have no choice at all under the horrible corporate food authority.
This is _gibberish_. Do you really think we live in some kind of gulag, where choice is impossible, where variety doesn't exist, and where abundance is just some trick concocted by marketing experts? Why would you even _want_ to believe this?