I don't see the issue as one of total autonomy, or pomo diversity, or cultural
diversity. It's about recognizing that "the masses" are people who have some
reason for wanting what they want. So do we, but we have to contend for what
we want because we believe in it and care about it, because we really do want
to live in a different kind of world. We can't hide behind thinking that
everybody else is too stupid to know what is good for them. You don't have to
like or agree with what someone wants to accept that there is a rationale for
it. People are influenced by a lot of things. Peer pressure is probably the
most important. Relevant peer group might be colleagues, neighbors, fellow
church members, social set - probably different groups have more influence on
different kinds of wants. These things are interactive - (subject to
constraints) people choose occupation, neighborhood, churches, and friends
according to a variety of resonances. Advertisers are constrained as well, why
else to they go to such lengths to determine what will resonate with whom and
to develop targeting vehicles?
(By the way, is it my imagination or is the Toyota Camry in vogue among left
academics in the U.S.?)
Two surefire ways to reach people - go on Oprah or write to Ann Landers. (I
would say call Rush, but my son says he would make a complete fool out of any
leftist and feed us to the lions to the roar of his cheering audience.)
Max Sawicky said:
>> what I regard as very problematic and politically dangerous
>> territory -- the elitist critique of the philistinism of the masses.
>> Comments -- which you have not made here -- to the effect that working
>> people are brainwashed by television and deluded into wanting things
>> that aren't good for them. I have seen such views advanced by those
>> on the left -- not by yourself, mind you -- and I think they are
>> patently offensive, inaccurate, and defeatist. If the wants of
>> ordinary people are determined by Capital, then why pursue an
>> alternative politics? And who are you to tell me I should be
>> watching Martin Chuzzlewit instead of NYPD Blue?
Unlike Max, however, I think this extends to the deficit as well. People have
plenty of reasons to be concerned about the deficit and a variety of ideas
about what gov't should spend money on. A couple of years ago Dollars & Sense
ran an article by Max on the deficit which had an argument about the
Economically Relevant Deficit and then whitttled the ERD down to nothing. What
me worry? I remember reading it in draft in a D&S collective meeting and
thinking why not just say straight up what deficit spending is good for instead
of this convoluted argument that tries to get people to deny what is in front
of their face? Obviously a minority view because the article ran as was. Hey,
you can't win 'em all.
Terry McDonough said:
>The problem with the elitist critique of the philistinism of the
>masses is that it generally serves to obscure any critique of the
>peculiar philistinisms of the elite. And comments about the
>brainwashing of working people by TV ignors the brainwashing of the
>intelligentsia by the more elite organs of opinion formation.
>Nevertheless, what people "want" is not an expression of some inner
>democratic essense in the traditional liberal view or an admirable source of
>diversity in the pomo liberal view. Wants are determined by social
>norms and are expressions of institutionalized standards of
>consumption. Since the radical project is about changing basic
>institutions, it is also inevitably about changing what people
>"want". What people want both for themselves and for their society
>must be subjected to a radical critique in every currently existing
>culture. Cultural relativism is not really a very radical position
>in relation to other cultures. When applied to one's own culture, it
>is a profoundly conservative idea and, yes, politically dangerous.
A radical critique of society is fine, but just because we have one doesn't
mean people will buy it once they see the light. It is a very value laden
proposition. There may well be a material basis for the analysis of
exploitation of labor, but a lot of peole will trade an analytically
constructed exploitation for a good paycheck. And a lot of people will accept
an oppressive exploitation of others as long as it doesn't get in their way.
I zapped part of this next section from Terry's message, but it is about
someone from Boston teaching a class in New York:
>City. At the end of term, he was approached by a student who asked,
>"This is all very interesting, but who is this guy Max you keep going
>on about?"
>Terry McDonough
I'm from Boston originally and moved back here in '91. I lived in Kentucky for
22 years and the whole time I was there, people would say "You're not from
here, are ya"? When I moved back to Massachusetts it was "Where did you get
that southern accent."
You want to talk about critiques of Philistinism, I warned my kids who were
both born and raised in Kentucky that when we went north to visit relatives,
people might treat them like hillbillies. Sure enough, a cab driver once asked
my son if he was wearing shoes. In KY I once worked with a guy who told me he
knew someone from Boston in the Navy. One day the Bostonian said "Let's go
party." Which of course came out "pahty". The guy from Kentucky thought the
other guy was saying "potty" and trying to hit on him.
> A later go at this is Robin Marris'. In a chapter on "Demand" in
>."The Economic Theory of Managerial Capitalism" (1964) Marris talks about
>how "wants" are learned and how we become habituated to our consumption
>preferences. This last point blows away the idea of fully reversible
>preference functions -- and with it the whole notion of travel back and
>forth on a demand curve.
> In other words, the whole micro underpinning of "Supply & Demand"
>trembles.
>For empircal work, which the mainstream always demands as it rejects
>"anecdotal evidence, see Houthakker & Taylor: "Consumer Demand in the
>United States" another Harvard Economic Study where they show that people
>develop HABITS of consumption -- again an attack on fully reversible
>preference functions. This, by the way, creates terrible problems for
>those folks measuring "elasticity of demand."
> Another way of looking at this "want" autonomy can be a peek at
>"Thge Growth of Television Ownership in the UK, a Lognormal Model" by A. D.
>Bain, Cambreidge U Press which I read to say that people learn from each
>other --among other influences -- what to "want."
> And then we can think about cigarette smoking. Do all smokers
>think up the "want" for smoking cigarettes autonomously? Or am I getting
>anecdotal here?
(I think the above section was from Gene Coyle.)
I'll bite. Ever since I started grad school, with a burning desire to put the
experience of working for one of the world's most powerful corporations during
a period of tremendous volatility into a meaningful context, I have been an
anecdote. But I've been told the truth is out there - in the one perfectly
formulated, perfectly significant, perfectly decomposed regression model.
(Anybody who gets the cultural referrant in that last sentence is privy to one
of my most philistine secrets.)
I started smoking because my friends did. The first time I quit it was when I
was working in the office of a left group & several of us made a pact to quit &
burned our remaining cigarettes in the back yard of the office. Another time I
quit because my kids kept bugging me about it (you might say they were at the
mercy of advertising). The last time I quit I was in a hospital with a blood
clot in my leg and they wouldn't let me smoke and my little pact with fate was
to stay quit when I got out. Whenever I started up again, it was because I was
addicted and smoking took the edge off whatever was bugging me at the time.
We are not immune.
That's all for now y'all
-----------Laurie
