A short (hopefully interesting) discussion
Hey Folks -
Below is part of a discussion taking place via an email group. I thought it might be of interest. If it continues and seems worth sharing, I'll share more in the future.
- Uke Man
Hi,
I've just started a book "Consumed" by Benjamin Barber. His thesis casts an ominous shadow on the problems you discussed.
He suggests that whereas Capitalism once produced products that people needed, for some time now it has been inventing "needs." Apparently, capital enterprises must constantly expand, but with the great disparity in wealth (the U.S., Canada, and Western Europe make up 11.5% of world population but do 60% of the consumer spending; sub-Saharan Africa has 11% of the world's population and does 1.2% of the spending), all the REAL needs of the well-off are easily addressed WITHOUT their purchasing/consuming enough to keep the expansion going. The REAL needs of the poor cannot be met because they don't have the income to pay for even the basics (nor does the system care to address problems that have no direct "return" on the "investment").
As a result, capital has to create among the well-off more and more need for unnecessary things, while ignoring the real needs of the other 80%. Clearly, that is a road to ruin, but I don't think those who benefit via that thoroughfare are listening or care.
Yours - Tom
Peter responded:
The history of human civilization starts when human imagination and excess time allowed things like art, culture, social specialization, heirarchies. Did cave men "need" cave art, jewelry, funerals? Once you have a warm fur coat, does it "need" to be stylish. If the food keeps you alive, does it "need" to be tasty?
Read up on Maslow's Heirarchy of needs.
I look at this from bottom up, not top down. Greedy corporations suceed or fail by how well they trigger the inherant desires of the consumers; once they have filled the basic desires, there is still an infinite craving in the human mind, heart and soul for more; not only material things but pleasure, novelty, status, self-actualization, love. Don't blame capitalists for "forcing" this - if anything, blame the individuals for allowing their human desires to be manipulated into shallow grasping for status, coolness, driving the "right" car, wearing the "right" clothes, supporting the "right" cause, etc.
Many "poor" now have a standard of living that would be envied by kings, emperors, etc of even the recent past. There are massive cases of social injustice, persecution, and handicaps of all kinds in the world; but I believe a lot of poverty is due to social and cultural beliefs and personal behavior.
Peter
Hi all [me, again],
Peter asks,” Did cave men "need" cave art, jewelry, funerals?” The answer is, “Yes.” They needed these things to assuage their natural fears; cave art to influence the hunt; jewelry for magic (potency and fertility); funerals (even Neanderthals had them) to address the reality of death (a concept beyond the conscious awareness of the animals they hunted). And these are real needs, stimulated by the natural environment.
Peter also asks, “If the food keeps you alive, does it "need" to be tasty?” Obviously, to stay alive food need not be tasty; starving people eat their shoes and make “cakes” from mud; but because of our biology certain things do taste better than others (and this varies from person to person in real ways). So, while food to stay alive may be a greater need than French cuisine, both are actual, real needs – and I think Maslow would agree with that.
The point I was trying to make was that there IS a difference between addressing real needs and inventing “needs” so that products can be sold to meet them. For example, using Maslow’s “Security,” it is the difference between a leader taking a country to war to protect it from an actual threat (thus addressing “Security”) and inventing a threat (causing insecurity) so that some hidden agenda can be advanced under the guise of meeting the people’s need for Security.
There is a difference.
Peter suggests, “once they have filled the basic desires [corporations], there is still an infinite craving in the human mind, heart and soul for more; not only material things but pleasure, novelty, status, self-actualization, love.
I think this is, at the least, an overstatement. The Amish, for one group, obviously don’t fit this description; and - while we may be a minority – many of us “English” don’t fit it either. It seems to me that this “infinite craving” for more is a cultural invention. Everyone needs food to survive; everyone confronts the reality of death; everyone does not have an “infinite craving” for more, more, more.
Those who do, it seems to me, are acting – as Peter suggests - under the influence of “social and cultural beliefs” which have invented such a need (the Amish apparently have been influenced by a different social/cultural foundation). And this challenges the suggestion, ”Don't blame capitalists for "forcing" this.”
It seems obvious to me that poor people living in this culture (no matter how well their standard of living stacks up with that of William the Conqueror or Napoleon) cannot be said to be leading the course of powerful corporations. Does anyone seriously believe that corporations provide $200.00 sneakers because poor black boys demand them (more, more) – or is it because corporations spend millions of dollars advertising the “need” for Air Jordan ’s.
It also seems obvious to me that suggesting: “Don't blame capitalists for "forcing" this - if anything, blame the individuals for allowing their human desires to be manipulated into shallow grasping for status, coolness, driving the "right" car, wearing the "right" clothes, supporting the "right" cause, etc.” is clearly wrong.
It’s the old “Buyer Beware” argument (“I sold you a lemon, a car I knew had been under water? That’s your problem. You shouldn’t be so stupid). It’s the conman’s excuse (“Hey ! You believed me. That’s your problem). It’s the rapist’s alibi (“She was asking for it. She shouldn’t have worn that sweater).
The corporations essentially own the media and the government. Laws and practices exist to serve the needs of the large and powerful (and those are the large and powerful capitalistic corporations). Blaming the little folks for being manipulated by the media/political barrage that constitutes growing up poor, working class, or middle class in America , makes no sense.
In any case, if the thesis of “Consumed” turns out to be correct, things will eventually have to change sometime in the future, or capitalism will collapse. And as B.F. Skinner used to say, “That’s an experimental question.”
Yours – Tom Harker
Below is part of a discussion taking place via an email group. I thought it might be of interest. If it continues and seems worth sharing, I'll share more in the future.
- Uke Man
Hi,
I've just started a book "Consumed" by Benjamin Barber. His thesis casts an ominous shadow on the problems you discussed.
He suggests that whereas Capitalism once produced products that people needed, for some time now it has been inventing "needs." Apparently, capital enterprises must constantly expand, but with the great disparity in wealth (the U.S., Canada, and Western Europe make up 11.5% of world population but do 60% of the consumer spending; sub-Saharan Africa has 11% of the world's population and does 1.2% of the spending), all the REAL needs of the well-off are easily addressed WITHOUT their purchasing/consuming enough to keep the expansion going. The REAL needs of the poor cannot be met because they don't have the income to pay for even the basics (nor does the system care to address problems that have no direct "return" on the "investment").
As a result, capital has to create among the well-off more and more need for unnecessary things, while ignoring the real needs of the other 80%. Clearly, that is a road to ruin, but I don't think those who benefit via that thoroughfare are listening or care.
Yours - Tom
Peter responded:
The history of human civilization starts when human imagination and excess time allowed things like art, culture, social specialization, heirarchies. Did cave men "need" cave art, jewelry, funerals? Once you have a warm fur coat, does it "need" to be stylish. If the food keeps you alive, does it "need" to be tasty?
Read up on Maslow's Heirarchy of needs.
I look at this from bottom up, not top down. Greedy corporations suceed or fail by how well they trigger the inherant desires of the consumers; once they have filled the basic desires, there is still an infinite craving in the human mind, heart and soul for more; not only material things but pleasure, novelty, status, self-actualization, love. Don't blame capitalists for "forcing" this - if anything, blame the individuals for allowing their human desires to be manipulated into shallow grasping for status, coolness, driving the "right" car, wearing the "right" clothes, supporting the "right" cause, etc.
Many "poor" now have a standard of living that would be envied by kings, emperors, etc of even the recent past. There are massive cases of social injustice, persecution, and handicaps of all kinds in the world; but I believe a lot of poverty is due to social and cultural beliefs and personal behavior.
Peter
Hi all [me, again],
Peter asks,” Did cave men "need" cave art, jewelry, funerals?” The answer is, “Yes.” They needed these things to assuage their natural fears; cave art to influence the hunt; jewelry for magic (potency and fertility); funerals (even Neanderthals had them) to address the reality of death (a concept beyond the conscious awareness of the animals they hunted). And these are real needs, stimulated by the natural environment.
Peter also asks, “If the food keeps you alive, does it "need" to be tasty?” Obviously, to stay alive food need not be tasty; starving people eat their shoes and make “cakes” from mud; but because of our biology certain things do taste better than others (and this varies from person to person in real ways). So, while food to stay alive may be a greater need than French cuisine, both are actual, real needs – and I think Maslow would agree with that.
The point I was trying to make was that there IS a difference between addressing real needs and inventing “needs” so that products can be sold to meet them. For example, using Maslow’s “Security,” it is the difference between a leader taking a country to war to protect it from an actual threat (thus addressing “Security”) and inventing a threat (causing insecurity) so that some hidden agenda can be advanced under the guise of meeting the people’s need for Security.
There is a difference.
Peter suggests, “once they have filled the basic desires [corporations], there is still an infinite craving in the human mind, heart and soul for more; not only material things but pleasure, novelty, status, self-actualization, love.
I think this is, at the least, an overstatement. The Amish, for one group, obviously don’t fit this description; and - while we may be a minority – many of us “English” don’t fit it either. It seems to me that this “infinite craving” for more is a cultural invention. Everyone needs food to survive; everyone confronts the reality of death; everyone does not have an “infinite craving” for more, more, more.
Those who do, it seems to me, are acting – as Peter suggests - under the influence of “social and cultural beliefs” which have invented such a need (the Amish apparently have been influenced by a different social/cultural foundation). And this challenges the suggestion, ”Don't blame capitalists for "forcing" this.”
It seems obvious to me that poor people living in this culture (no matter how well their standard of living stacks up with that of William the Conqueror or Napoleon) cannot be said to be leading the course of powerful corporations. Does anyone seriously believe that corporations provide $200.00 sneakers because poor black boys demand them (more, more) – or is it because corporations spend millions of dollars advertising the “need” for Air Jordan ’s.
It also seems obvious to me that suggesting: “Don't blame capitalists for "forcing" this - if anything, blame the individuals for allowing their human desires to be manipulated into shallow grasping for status, coolness, driving the "right" car, wearing the "right" clothes, supporting the "right" cause, etc.” is clearly wrong.
It’s the old “Buyer Beware” argument (“I sold you a lemon, a car I knew had been under water? That’s your problem. You shouldn’t be so stupid). It’s the conman’s excuse (“Hey ! You believed me. That’s your problem). It’s the rapist’s alibi (“She was asking for it. She shouldn’t have worn that sweater).
The corporations essentially own the media and the government. Laws and practices exist to serve the needs of the large and powerful (and those are the large and powerful capitalistic corporations). Blaming the little folks for being manipulated by the media/political barrage that constitutes growing up poor, working class, or middle class in America , makes no sense.
In any case, if the thesis of “Consumed” turns out to be correct, things will eventually have to change sometime in the future, or capitalism will collapse. And as B.F. Skinner used to say, “That’s an experimental question.”
Yours – Tom Harker
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home