>Brian:
>
>
>>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.
>>
>>
>
>Read (not scan) what I actually write before hitting the "reply" button.
>I did not argue that availability is a problem. I argued that despite
>availability, choice is constrained by peer pressure, and peer pressure
>is reinforced and sanctioned by advertising. I do not "claim" as you
>suggest that people have no choice and similar nonsense, I said that
>consumer capitalism was quite effective in disguising the choices made
>by merchandise pushers as "people's choices."
>
Let me refresh your memory on what you wrote (emphasis added):
"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_."
"Missing the social context in which decisions to purchase clothing are made can create a _false sense of abundant choices_ where _none are available_."
"The corporate standards of fashion, by contrast, are _imposed from above_ just as the Catholic school uniformity is - but they are cleverly disguised as "individual choice." As a result, people slavishly follow them without even knowing that _they are being remotely controlled_. Worse yet, they defend the _corporate yoke_ as the epitome of "individual freedom," as it is often the case in the US."
In summary, you have consistently maintained that people do not have any choice in what they wear, and that this is a constraint imposed by corporate culture.
>3. I do not blame consumer capitalism for limiting people's choices.
>
See above.
>4. I am nonplussed why otherwise intelligent people uncritically fall
>for the commodity fetishism (including intellectual commodity fetishism)
>created and propagated by the marketing industry.
>
And here we have a marvelous example of the intellectuals' disease-- the
creation of terminology to facilitate one's own snobbery. One could
simply accept that people like to have things, and accept it as a foible
of the species. But, apply a term like "commodity fetishism," and
suddenly, one can treat it as though it were a deficiency, a mania, or
something that the _inferior_ classes engage in. Such appeals to
intellectuals' vanity always find a receptive market. (See, for example,
Wojtek's comments about the "50+ channels of violence, pulp fiction, and
mindless entertainment," which an awful lot of people actually have the
nerve to enjoy.)