> Brian writes:
>
> "I think she means me. But I'd have to say that Joanna (and others) are
> making somewhat promiscuous use of the term "consume." Let me give you an
> example. If I say that we have a wide variety of books, movies,
> recordings, newspapers, magazines and the like available to us, that's
> desccribing something _very good_. It means that those of us who like to
> read, or appreciate music, or admire films or drama or whatever, can
> indulge our aesthetic tastes to a phenomenal degree. What intelligent
> person wouldn't want to have millions of books available for the
> reading?"
>
> We have a wide variety of books, yes. Movies (other than on VHS/DVD), no;
That leaves movies in actual theaters, or in film museums. (Or Betamax.) As for people being able to rent or own their own copies, to watch at their leisure, yes, there _is_ a wide variety.
> recordings, yes; newspapers, big NO; magazines, not really. The freedom
> to indulge your aesthetic taste is a nice little freedom; it pales by
> comparison with the freedom to create beauty -- for which there is
> largely no time, no energy, no context, and not much of an audience.
This is one of the shabbier rhetorical techniques around-- to insist on ever-increasing standards of proof and evidence. People were claiming that life in the U.S. was so saturated with corporate agendas that nothing else was remotly possible. I point out that there was a very wide range of cultural works which people could obtain and appreciate very easily-- far more so than nearly all of human history, and considerably more than most of the rest of the modern world.
Then it was argued that this was merely "consuming." Not good enough. So I ask why this particular word has to be used, with its connotations of mindlessness, digestion, disposability, and the like. Seemed like a "spin" word to me.
Now Joanna insists on a _higher_ standard-- that people should be _creating_ beauty, instead of just "consuming" it.
This is sort of like hearing someone complain that kids today can't appreciate culture, because all they do is play video games and listen to hip-hop. But, one might reply, don't they read Harry Potter? That doesn't count, comes the reply; hey're just mass-marketed hackwork, like Harold Bloom said. They ought to be reading _Nabokov_, or writing their _own_ novels.
> "But once we apply the term "consume," suddenly, the picture changes. No
> longer are we in a reader's paradise, where Dickens and Thackeray and
> Austen are just as available as King or Rushdie or Rowling. Suddenly we
> are merely "consumers," gluttonously feeding on shiny new products
> without a care in the world or even the wit to recognize our squalid
> behavior."
>
> I like to read, I like to see great movies, I like to listen to music.
> But I would prefer to live rather than to compensate myself for not
> having a life by these various means.
And here Joanna leaps to an argument that, frankly, isn't really arguable. Sure, most of us would like to think of ourselves as doers rather than spectators. But here she implies, very strongly, that _other_ people who read, see movies and listen to music are merely "compensating for not having a life." I'd like to know what standard Joanna uses to measure whether someone has a life or not.
Again, we see two ugly tendencies in this kind of argument. The first is, as I've said, the continual shifting of standards to suit the moment. Start by saying that people have no freedom and no opportunity. When someone points out that they have considerable freedom and many opportunities, find reasons to explain why these are illusory. When people cite specific examples, claim that the examples aren't good enough.
The second is snobbery and disdain for what others do with their lives. _Joanna_ can read and see movies and listen to music... but when _others_ do these things, it's because they have to compensate themselves for not having a life.
> "What I find amusing about Joanna's comment above is her reference to
> "brainwashing." Tell me, Joanna; what would an "un-brainwashed" person be
> doing with his or her leisure time? Boning up on the latest Amnesty
> International reports? Studying the Eighteenth Brumaire? Deconstructing
> the strategies of discourse permissible within the boundaries of dominant
> ideology?"
>
> First, to clarify what I mean by "brainwashing": I am referring to the
> constant and unrelenting exposure to advertising which follows the
> average consumer from cradle to grave and intrudes on activities like the
> following: watching movies/shows on TV, walking or any form of travel,
> acessing the Internet, going to school, attending almost any public
> event, etc.
And most people find such things _irritating_. We've also learned to tune them out to a large degree. Nobody would say that advertising has no influence, but it's a far cry from what the term "brainwashing" describes.
I was born and raised in a country with no consumer culture.
> I think, on the whole, people were as happy as people in the U.S. For
> fun, they hung out, enjoyed animal pleasures: eating/drinking/sex, read
> books, wrote books, walked, climbed mountains, danced, ...There seemed to
> be tons of time for things to do -- though TV watching and shopping did
> not consume that much time. I would say that people's most enjoyable
> activity was spending time with friends.
>
> What should we be doing with our leisure time? Living, of course.
> Watching the sun set. Helping your kid with her homework. ...whatever.
And people _don't_ do these things?