----- Original Message ----- From: "Wojtek Sokolowski" <sokol at jhu.edu>
> Since this thread is veering into the culutralidentity/pomo territory,
> which to say the least is not my cup of tea, let me briefly summarize my
> position on the issue.
>
> 1. I did not advocate school uniforms. I argued that school uniforms
> (or dress codes) represent the local choice of dress code, as opposed to
> the dress code pushed by the transnational garment industry. While I do
> not necessarily favor local control over national or international one
> (c.f. the local push for teaching creationism), I do believe that in
> this particular case local control of the dress code would be easier on
> the parents' wallet, and thus give a much needed break to less affluent
> families.
>
> 2. Equating dress codes with totalitarianism or "individual expression
> is sheer idiocy. Schools do a lot to instill uniformity and deference
> to authority (e.g. multiple choice testing), but dress code is not part
> of it. In fact, the liberalization of the dress code seams to be an
> illusion of freedom created to cover up the stupefying conformity and
> uniformity created by sanitized curricula and standardized testing.
>
> 3. I do not blame consumer capitalism for limiting people's choices.
> The problem with consumer capitalism, imho, is that it manipulates those
> choices to legitimate the choices made by authority figures in a quite
> self-serving and undemocratic fashion. The authority figures took away
> people's freedom of movement by dismantling public transportation and
> heavily subsidizing infrastructure that made individual auto ownership
> more affordable. The entertainment industry inundates the public with
> 50+ channels of violence, pulp fiction, and mindless entertainment
> heavily laced with advertisement. The industry inundates the market
> with fattening food and a snake oil remedy for obesity as well as a
> myriad of grossly overpriced fetishes advertised to remedy all
> imaginable social problems. Yet all those decisions are defended as
> "people's choices." At the same, "people's choices" amount to nothing
> when they threaten corporate profits, cf. national health care.
>
> 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.
>
> Wojtek
===================
C'mon Woj. While you make some good points, it's wrapped in a lefty version of supply-side econ. with no role for effective demand-desire. And we won't go into your grammar as regards causality. :-)
Ian