> On Monday, August 25, 2003, at 03:51 PM, Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
>
> Yes, but -- Brian has a point. If you _want_ to and put some effort
> into it, you can entertain yourself without the 50+ channels -- just
> go to IFC (for example). Or better yet, turn off the TV and read a
> book, or write one, or play a musical instrument, or paint a picture.
> None of this is forbidden by the big corporations.
Not forbidden _yet_, but thanks for the support. I'd like to make it clear that I don't regard the "free market" as the be-all and end-all of human endeavor, or the magical solution to all of our problems.
But it's really frustrating to run into the melodramatic we-live-in-hell tendency among much of the Left, which is what runs through Wojtek's comments. It's not enough to say that corporations exert too much influence on public policy, or that we depend on them for far too much of our commerce and supply; some people feel the need to say that we live under a smotheringly oppressive corporate state, with _no_ choice and _no_ freedom and _no_ hope, and that the population is hopelessly deluded by advertising and propaganda and capitalism to know this. It's like listening to right-wing academics complaining that "political correctness" has turned colleges into police states.
Why is this frustrating? Lots of reasons. The first is that _nobody would believe this_. The very people that we want to reach with our values-- the bulk of Americans, obviously-- enjoy a standard of living that's higher than most of the rest of the world. It's not perfect, it's in danger of falling apart under a Republican administration, there's considerable inequality and injustice and all the rest, and most Americans would agree that there are serious problems with our country right now. But no American in his or her right mind would look at the problems and decide that he or she is living in the equivalent of a Stalinist gulag.
The second is that nobody in his or her right mind would _want_ to believe this. Who would want to live one's life as though one lived under the bootheel of oppression? Why would anyone want to step outside his or her home, furtively watching for the surveillance cameras and police patrols, while worrying that they could lose their job or home or family merely by reading the wrong magazine or chating with the wrong stranger on the bus? (Not that this _doesn't_ happen, even in America-- but like I said, who would _want_ to live like this?)
(Actually, I do know of people who want to live like this. They tend to be radical separatists, like militias, Apocalypse cults, Y2K survivalist libertarians, and even bogus-Left groups like Philadelphia's old MOVE group. They need to live as though they're playing Freedom Fighter. They're also absolutely bugfuck.)
> Of course, most Americans don't do most of these "alternative" things.
> But why not? Corporate influence probably explains *some* of the
> "conformist" behavior, but not all of it. As with most aspects of
> human behavior, the explanations are actually extremely complex and
> probably not as yet known even to the best psychologists and
> sociologists currently on the planet, because human beings are just
> too damned complicated to be completely nailed down by any theories we
> have so far.
Actually, I think human beings _do_ like to conform in many ways. I don't think people are mindless sheep, or that any kind of conformity indicates a less-than-acceptable level of intelligence. We're social animals, and we like to have commonalities with other humans. Sharing social values makes things easier on all of us-- for example, I wouldn't want to live in a world where I'm constantly wondering about strangers, "Okay, does this guy live by a moral code that allows murder over disagreements?" It makes meeting strangers easier-- people can talk sports, or _The Simpsons_, or whatever.
What I fond amusing about the denunciations of corporate culture-- or, rather, culture that's mostly supplied through corporate entities-- is that it presumes that people wouldn't be enjoying it if alternatives were "available." If only the record companies didn't have such a lock on the market, the logic goes, people would be flocking to listen to Ann DiFranco, while Bruce Springsteen would be busking for change at the shopping mall.
> But to come up with a political position, one has to drastically
> oversimplify everything, and pretend to know everything. That's why
> I'm not very impressed by politicians and political theorists -- even
> leftie ones.
This was one of the problems I've had with Chomsky's media analysis. As usual, his arguments are cogent and well-documented, but when he talks about near-total control of the media, or likens it to that of a police state, I can't quite agree with him. Yes, the range of opinion on the mainstream media is pretty constrained, and the people who set the "talking points" are on the intellectual level of party hacks... but some good stuff does get through (and Chomsky even cites it sometimes), and one can always turn to the alternative sources, which are available to anyone (especially due to the Internet). And sadly, I've run into a lot of people who parrot Chomsky about the "corporate media," mainly to be able to dismiss something they don't want to accept; if it turns up in the _Times_ or on CBS, it shouldn't be believed.