From: kelley at pulpculture.org
Charles Brown wrote:
>With all our contemplation of self-oppression, by now we want to express
>hypotheses on how someone can be deprogrammed from being a Wal-Mart Happy
>Slave.
Describing people as slaves, dupes, programmed.... is exactly what I object to. It's definitely what doug is objecting to when he criticizes people for assuming that tv viewers are like sponges, uncritically sucking up whatever they view.
^^^^^^ CB: You should read the rest of my post. I am agreeing with you.
Is it your position that slaves in the U.S. slave system did not participate in their own oppression , i.e. that Judith Butler's concept didn't apply to slaves in the U.S. ? I pointed out to you that the phenomenon of participating in your own oppression occurred among slaves. So, slaves give us an historical example that might help to solve the current problems. In fact, the paradox is stronger with slaves than with Walmart workers, so it makes it easier to understand.
Butler's thesis means that people are duped, programmed, slaves. Participating in your own oppression is being duped. Otherwise, it is not that I don't get Butler's thesis, but that the thesis is wrong.
^^^^
> Are there any interviews or studies of ex-members of the Wal-Mart
>cult, who turned themselves around ?
What turned you around? :) Geddit yet?
^^^^^^ CB: I thought I understood it better than you :>) No, I don't get what you are saying here. My whole post is an effort to take what you are saying and apply it to the Walmart situation. So, do you understand what I am saying ? :>)
Lets put it this way. The hypothesis you ( and I guess Doug ) are putting forth doesn't make sense unless you are positing a contradictory consciousness in both Walmart workers and television watchers. They are both cunning and duped at the same time. When you say "participate in their own oppression" and like phrases you seem to recognize this. But when you respond as above, you drop "half" the contradiction.
>But am I being unfair in that they may
>be more like sports fans side than cultmembers ? And in fact more practical
>than sports fans even. They are not acting irrationally !
I'm not sure since I'm uncertain as to the distinction you're drawing.
I'm a sports fan. My son barely got to play this year because of an injury and then a life-threatening illness (he's fine now). Nonetheless, I was probably one of the biggest cheerleaders at all the games. I probably cheered more than our lazy-ass cheerleaders! :) This probably has to do with a stint as a cheerleader and, later, as water girl for the football team, but unlike many other parents, I had no qualms about Wahooing in the stands, leading everyone in the stomp down during a free throw, harassing the refs, and just generally yelling myself hoarse, encouraging the kids. Indeed, it was my willingness to embarrass my old fart ass that encouraged them to start doing more of the same. Dang! I couldn't believe it! They didn't realize how important it was to the kids that we were there yelling and screaming for them!
:) So, what crappy things do you want to say about fans?
*ssssmmaaaaaaaOOOOOOOch*
^^^^^^^ CB: Here I was sort of doing stream of consciousness, but I was thinking that sports fan mentality is not to the degree of a cultmember. So, in this context analyzing Walmart employees as having mentality akin to sports fans would be a nice thing to say about them compared to analyzing them as having a cultmember mentality.
I was thinking that Walmart seems to incorporate a "rah, rah Walmart" component to its preferred employee mentality profile, which reminds of a sports fan's mentality. But that is not as intense as a cultmember's mentality.
^^^^^
>Practically speaking , people need jobs (" 2 cents in yer pocket ")
She was using a cute expression for "my two cents."
^^^ CB: Yes, I took it to be punningly cute, such that it also means people need money,and that's part of why they take jobs at Walmart even with rough management practices.
^^^^
>Perhaps some trade unions could establish networks of ex-Wal-Mart workers.
>There might not be a large number, but those most aggrieved might
constitute
>a core group. Some left academic researchers might initiate it (carefully
>avoiding studying Walmarters like animals in a zoo !),
Who needs to study why workers work or enjoy their jobs if they should beable to look at their own lives and figure it out?! Unless, of course, you think of yourself and your job as so superior and special that you can't imagine that they are motivated by the very same things you are.
Geddit yet? :)
^^^^^^ CB: I'm not sure you have an "it" to claim you "get". If you don't think that the jobs of Walmart workers represent a degradation from unionized jobs and the victories of the working class movement , then... I don't know what to tell you. You are right that a premise to this thread started by Michael Perelman is that Walmart workers have working conditions etc. that are below the average, represent a historical step backward in terms of the working class movement; and that leftists are concerned to fight that.
Millions of workers have been organized over the decades by left activists and union organizers without their getting hungup on the organizer's having better working conditions than the workers being organized or hungup on some implication that the organizers were superior people to those they were organizing. I think organizers have to be conscious not to be paternalistic liberals , if that is what you are getting at.
Charles