Are we making social changes based on a product that excites us briefly with ideas about ourselves?
Everything of powerful cultural change we in the world, outside of the United States, have embraced as if it sprung from us, has come from the USA. The list is endless: the Beats, Jazz, the Blues, Levis, rock and roll, the hippies, the Yippies, the counter culture, the student protest movement, the civil rights movement, the Black Panthers, the environmental movement, feminism, gay rights, self improvement, etc.
Some of them may not have originated in the USA, some of them came to the USA as original seeds, like the Beatles, and the repositioning of the Blues by British bands, or the style of Carnaby Street.
Wherever it came from it was embraced by America and finally owned, repackaged, then sold on to the world, as if America was the source.
What we receive passively is the product of a complex society, but paradoxically incredibly simple, and the nature of that product is the nature of the country. The product is actually nothing, it’s something so beautifully constructed that it seems real, as if, yes, that’s America. It’s appealing because it’s attached to so much power and glamour. Of course it’s not America and it’s certainly not us, wherever we are.
What they sell are cultural ideas that have no depth, no connecting history, no sense of direction, nothing but the sensation of buying it. Everything is a product, everything is consumed, everything has a use by date.
The problem today is that these cultural packages take on a huge momentum with extreme consequences, because it’s not just jeans, and drugs and rock and roll anymore, today it’s climate change and ideas about patriarchy, gender, justice and language. Each one of those things has been packaged and sold on to the world and the rest of the world bought it. We bought something from a door to door salesman who told us we needed it, that everyone else had one and what would your neighbour think if you didn’t have one.
Would any of those movements have grown in other countries without the sales pitch, the packaging, the excitement, the feel good glow of taking part.Theres no solutions in these packages, just a brief sense of virtue or self satisfaction, which leads to emptiness when the product loses its original appeal.
Not only do we consume culture but we consume a culture that’s not ours and in fact is not even real. Even now we’re about to have the idea of Socialism sold to us by the USA as if they invented it.
My question is are we making social changes based on the ideas we emulate that have no content and no substantial meaning, except as a product that excites us briefly with ideas about ourselves?
Comments (33)
ideas about the increasing role of money mediating social relationships. And Polanyi's argument for 'substantivist' economics mid-century.
As far as I am concerned the only core value is survival.
Who is 'us'?
I'm sorry about that. There are a lot of other valuable dimensions that can greatly enrich one's life.
The object / subject of the OP? "The entire population of the world" I think is meant by "US".
"A critic knows the price of everything, and the value of nothing. A cynic knows the price of truth, and the value of humour." -- Socrates, or Aristotle, and/or Plagiar.
Bad values, maybe. If you want to judge someone else's values. Or useless, or negative values. But a value is a value is a value. An inherent worth or the lack of it of something can't be the opposite of value.
Methinks.
Socialism is not sold. Capitalism is sold. Socialism is solidarity. Capitalism is survival of the richest.
So do you think that those who gravitate to socialism have fundamentally different values than those who gravitate to capitalism? If so, are they reconcilable? Or can they at least co-exist under the same roof?
Everyone is both a socialist and a capitalist as every sexual being is both female and male. Females being more female than male and visa versa. To what extent you are more socialist than capitalist tends to be determined by your upbringing. If you have grown up in wealthy circumstances you tend to be more capitalistic and visa versa.
Both extremes are undesirable: Fascism and Communism have brought untold misery. As with most things, finding the right balance is desirable. This can usually be found in liberal democracies.
Yes, this was the question I had in mind. I don't know this is strictly true. Perhaps the mass followers, yes, but many communist ideologues were well-to-do, Lenin, Marx, Mao.
Quoting Pantagruel
What I was referring to wasn’t products of a monetised culture, even though America is that. I was making use of the term product to show how an idea can be packaged into something that can be consumed, and even the term consumed I’m only using to refer to how the idea is taken up, hence the term cultural packages. How these ‘ideas’, and I’m not even sure that’s an accurate term, get transferred is of interest to me, among other things, like why do we embrace them so quickly and passively? What do we get out of it? The media plays a big part, but the media only report on something that has already begun.
Quoting ovdtogt
That’s more of an objective. There are a lot of actions taken before that. It’s the core values that contribute to your survival. But I’d like to hear more from you about the core of my post.
I suppose I’m talking about memes here. The question then is, where do memes spawn, why do they survive, why do they invade other cultures so easily and can we fight them?
Edit: one last thought. What if climate change is a meme?
I am of the opinion that contempory civilization has developed the means to almost completely control our fears and desires and has reduced us into consumer slaves.
Last night I wondered what would happen if all of a sudden all TV's (media) would disappear. It would be like waking up out of a dream ( or nightmare).
Once you truly understand that fears and desires are the driving force behind all our actions everything will understand.
Quoting ovdtogt
I don’t accept that for a minute. I know it makes sense if you believe that caring for someone, or loving them, is driven by some sort of desire. But I don’t.
Quoting Pantagruel
I’m now focusing on my OP in terms of memes. Using memes as a metaphor gives me something to work with. Up until now haven’t spent much time looking into memes, so there may be holes in what I think. So I’m not even sure which comes first, the process or the contents.
Without fear/desire you would not get out of bed in the morning.
Anything not necessary for survival can be considered a drug.
Isn't a meme a culturally transmitted disease? If you are looking for the origin of memes, you need look no further than PR. They are the great purveyors of memes.
Without any real quantifiable criteria of "fitness" or "value" too, other than the fact that they spread. If they are significant at all I'd say it is as the "low-watermark" of cultural consciousness....
It is just another form of 'idol' worshiping. As old as religion.
Quoting ovdtogt
If your defining desire as anything done consciously then I probably can’t argue the point. But there might be things done for others unconsciously that you may not even be aware of. That would depend on who you are, the nature of your life. Or you just might not be very aware of how you operate.
I don't think many people are aware how they operate. You have to look deep 'inside' yourself to realize how much of a slave you are to your fears and desires. For most peoples these driving forces operate on a sub-conscious level .