BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

The commodified self!

  
 
Strange Machine Vs The Virus with Shoes
22:33 / 14.06.03
To what extents are we comodified people. By commodity, I mean marketable produce. Is this just a natural instinct for self-promotion, or is something deeper going on. The slave/master ratio may have differentiated by a few fractions, but how much is discipline internalised? Do you “market” yourself? Does this link into societies obsession with celebrity? I know that one of the legacies of industrialisation is that we have internalised a factory mentality, structured in a certain way. But how far have we internalised a management structure within our working selves. In the future will we not need managers (nice thought). We will manage ourselves. And we will be happy!
Happy, as in a good little slave!
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
10:54 / 15.06.03
Question: One of Marx's objections to Capitalism was that the worker sold his time rather than his produce, and therefore did not share in the profit made. Now, here you are asking whether we are commodified by our efforts to sell our talents. So the question is, if we sell our talents in such a way that we receive equitable remuneration, are we still slaves? Or does our 'instinct for self-promotion' make us free? Or Do we become oppressors the moment we cease to be slaves?
 
 
No star here laces
07:16 / 16.06.03
We cease to be slaves the moment we are allowed self-determination. Ergo it is very unlikely that any of us have ever, technically, been slaves.

Marx himself acknowledged the hyperbole of calling waged workers slaves, using I believe, the term "in many ways they are worse off than slaves" i.e. not equivalent to.

In what sense, Panarchy, do you think a system of internalised control (is this a foucault reference?) makes us slaves?

Personally I am highly aware of my marketability and carefully construct my CV and my persona when going for a job so as to maximise the opportunity with the 'target market' of the interviewer. When accepting a job I think carefully about its likely impact on my future marketability and try to only take opportunities that make me more desirable. I find this to be an extremely effective strategy.

I'd question whether it is a bad thing to have this awareness. Frankly, i think it puts the individual on more of an equal footing with large organisations.

Of course this may be because, and I flatter myself here, I have highly marketable talents and if my self is commodified, it is a high value commodity. Which is nice for me, but less nice for those who are told their value is low.

But I think it would be wrong to suggest that only in the modern world has society been unequal and that only in today's times to people feel that they are of low value to society. This has always been the case, and as long as humans are heterogeneous this is likely to remain the case...
 
 
—| x |—
08:04 / 16.06.03
“We cease to be slaves the moment we are allowed self-determination. Ergo it is very unlikely that any of us have ever, technically, been slaves.”

Hmm, that’s a whole kettle of worms your cookin’ with gas there, Shoelaces. Even given the assumption that we have self-determination, it still seems that this does not give an instant freedom from slavery. I mean, simply because we can choose from an array of options doesn’t mean we can’t also be slaves. Look, I could have, at one time, been a slave on some plantation. So my master comes up to me and says, “Hey boy, I’m gonna’ let you decide if you want to clean the chicken coop, shovel the shit from the stables, or weed the lawn.” Simply because I have the self-determination to choose from these possibilities doesn’t grant my freedom from slavery. Thus, while the society that we find ourselves in may offer a variety of choices for us to self-determine our path from, we could still be in bondage with respect to the options we don’t have or the structures that define and limit our degree of self-determination.
 
 
No star here laces
09:54 / 16.06.03
Aight, aight, I get the point.

I was really only trying to say that 'slaves' is overly emotive language for what is really going on...
 
 
—| x |—
06:39 / 20.06.03
Perhaps, but overly emotive to whom?

To me, the idea is somewhat like (yawn) "Yeah we're in bondage, so what are we gonna' do about it? How can I make freedom more present in my life and the lives of those around me?" To others it provides a spark of ignition, a catalyst for change of mind/view/heart, etc.. It fires their thirst for a better tomorrow. Yet for others, it is merely a sort of dull, "What?" And then we might try to explain more, but these sort of people are none too interested. And still some people might react with disgust at the idea, recoil at the thought of it, or simply say that it's too strong a word. It all depends on context and the individual, I suppose.

To some extent, everyone is on sale—we are commodity. Some of us even willingly pay to display our branded mark as consumer cattle identity entities. I sell my time, someone else buys it. That time might get used to produce such and such or serve to provide such and such. If I don’t “market myself” to get a job, then I have no income and whammo!—on the street. But yes, the language is pushed a little there. But then again, a job isn’t necessarily satisfying nor is a career; thus, it is a form of bondage if it is empty and not fulfilling. It seems to me that in order to do what we really want to do, in order to have an income and be satisfied from the earning of that income, then more often than not we will have to “market” ourselves in ways that really aren’t such a stretch of the language. Or so it seems to me.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
08:29 / 20.06.03
Hm. Okay, let's take it from the other side. We assume Capitalism and its assorted permutations are bad - structurally incapable of providing a free society - so what else would we like to try? And what problems can be identified before we throw off the yoke of Capital and construct a different but equally heavy burden for ourselves?
 
 
No star here laces
10:19 / 21.06.03
>0<, I don't know if you've ever read Erich Fromm, who is hugely insightful on this topic, particularly "Escape from freedom". His basic premise is that capitalism and its development (he was writing in the 1940s, but his analysis is still valid) are the end of a long line of developments which have made people more free - free from the obligations of medieval life, free from religious control, free from restrictions generally. But at the same time, the more you allow people to be individuals, as capitalism does, the more you dissolve their sense of security and support. Thus the more free from external controls we become, the more we impose internal controls on ourselves.

The thing that I find disturbing about the way that many people rail against capitalism (and I don't know yet if you fall into this bracket or not) is that they frequently seem to like the idea of returning to a time when people did not have many of the freedoms that they currently enjoy under capitalism, in one way or another. You have to acknowledge that there are always trade-offs to be made, and that people will always desire security in one form or another, possible more than they desire some nebulous freedom.

So I think you need to clearly define what you mean by 'freedom'.

Personally, I frankly feel that my current freedom to do pretty much whatever I wish with myself much of the time is worth cultivating marketable skills for. So my time has a value? This merits little more than a shrug - bondage it ain't.
 
 
Strange Machine Vs The Virus with Shoes
23:46 / 21.06.03
I think that those who rail against capitalism are as deluded as those who rail for a total free market capitalistic world. (This is not having a go at you Shoelaces, but expounding my theory).
The more progressive societies can appear to be in conflict between corporate and social benefit. American society at its most internally successful had the greatest number of industrial regulatory bodies than any other country. Britain achieved a wider level of education and affluence because of the actions of socialism and trade unionism, than of the industrial capitalists (of course one can argue that state education and health care were part of the capitalist mechanism, but this seems to much like conspiracy theory, and detracts from the struggle of the working class).

Like the rising duality and paradox of globalisation (one modelled on trans-national corporations and individualism and the other on grassroots global movements connecting people and communities), the internalisation of discipline may become help or a hindrance.

Maybe certain types of people feel more freely disposed to move around within the capitalist structure, others don’t, and maybe it is not a “hankering back” to some good old days that drives many to oppose capitalism, but a belief in a better future?

Capitalism only agrees upon freedoms within certain parameters, and we are not talking about the extreme freedoms here. The freedoms that capitalism engenders are actually pretty close to the primeval freedoms of strong over weak. Now these two terms may sound uncomfortable, but capitalism in its purest form thrives on them. And “weak” and “strong” only pertain to certain characteristics in a person. It is often noted how the modern hunter/alpha male exists within the stock exchange. Capitalism (like most forms of social structure) depends upon obedience. But this obedience is purely top-down, not integrational, as communal obedience is. And so finally the internalisation of discipline can help the upper levels of the population conquer new markets, make sure the means by which people can achieve a lasting sense of self determination are reduced and promote new ways of directing opinion and moral thought, towards a corporate goal.

Nick, I’m going to start a thread on the “what else” question in the switchboard when I get some time, based on George Monbiots ideas on a global justice charter/manifesto (I’m surprised it hasn’t been raised yet).
 
 
—| x |—
01:28 / 22.06.03
“>0<, I don't know if you've ever read Erich Fromm…”

No, but I am vaguely familiar with him, and recently a person discussed some of his views with me and suggested I check him out. From your brief synopsis, I’d say I’d agree with his position.

“The thing that I find disturbing about the way that many people rail against capitalism…is that they frequently seem to like the idea of returning to a time when people did not have many of the freedoms that they currently enjoy under capitalism, in one way or another.”

As far as “railing against capitalism goes” (and so answering you bracketed implicit question), I agree with Panarchy when he says, “I think that those who rail against capitalism are as deluded as those who rail for a total free market capitalistic world.” As to “returning to a time” that was some “golden age” in the past—I find that as ridiculous a Holy Grail as pining away for the future utopia. Now is what we got: here is our golden age, our utopia, our prison, &/v our plague—this is my feeling anyway…

So when I ask, “Yeah we're in bondage, so what are we gonna' do about it? How can I make freedom more present in my life and the lives of those around me?” I don’t want to have to give you a definition or criteria as what counts towards the meaning of ‘freedom’. Differently, what I mean might be rephrased as “How do I discover/create ways in the world to ease suffering for myself and others?” Does that help you see what I am saying better?

“Personally, I frankly feel that my current freedom to do pretty much whatever I wish with myself much of the time is worth cultivating marketable skills for. So my time has a value? This merits little more than a shrug - bondage it ain't.”

Hmm, I wish to go to the moon; I wish to solve problems of “the new math” in string theory; I wish—right now—to jet to Las Vegas and blow tens of thousands of dollars on gambling, shows, hotels, and other forms of entertainment; I wish to fly to Iraq and stand in front of American tanks; I wish to go to a Barbelith meet in London; I wish to make a high quality movie out of Phil Dick’s Flow My Tears the Policeman Said—sticking to the story as it is written in the book!; I wish to build structures out of garbage and scrap metal in certain intersections of the downtown core and light them on fire as a form of artistic expression: there are perhaps an infinite number of things that I might possibly wish to do—have the freedom to do—that my or most ordinary people’s “marketable skills” will restrict them from doing. This to me is a form of bondage. In the world as it is, the fact that a person’s time has (monetary) value is required—I’m not passing a judgement here, merely describing; i.e., we are at least partially, by this fact alone, comodities.

So I agree with the tone of Panarchy’s post. I don’t think Capitalism is “the evil” and I lean to a more socialist-capitalist or “human interest/responsibility” mutant capitalism.
 
 
No star here laces
13:29 / 23.06.03
I totally agree in loads of ways - am certainly not arguing that what we have is the best of all possible worlds.

However, do think quite strongly that we do need to remember that in absolute terms, what we have now is basically better than anything we've had before and that in thinking about alternatives you can't chuck the baby out with the bathwater, to use a cliche.

The basic trouble is that the macro benefits of an organised, productive society that can produce the kind of goods and services that only industrial scale and industrial technology can give us seems to be in conflict with the micro issues of individual security and fulfillment. And that this is a very thorny problem indeed.

More later...
 
 
grim reader
10:15 / 24.06.03
I am in fact Calvinball Ronan's mentally challenged step-uncle but dont know how to sign in here. We are verbs that have a tendancy to treat each other as nouns, therein lies the beginnings of the commodification process. It strikes me as interesting that this cyber-space, which is increasingly serving our meta-needs has become the forum for such a discussion. The only cybernetic certainty I can derive from this discussion is that the rich and powerful have always traded on the fears of the masses to maintain their power. Buddhists would say that globalisation is an effort to blend the human realm with that of the hungry ghosts, beings with thin necks and huge bellies that can never be satisfied, we seem to be increasingly at the mercy of the Asuras, or warring titans who, like hungry ghosts, can never know satisfaction. How to rectify this unsatisfactory impasse?
It is a verisimilitude that we can only start with ourselves and a continually mindful Questioning of our own drives, motivations, intentions and desires. That said, I would like to see a "Well designed science decade". Anthropologists and psychologists as well as philosophers could concentrate on what it truely means to be human in terms of hard wiring, cultural connectivity, memetic spectrum analysis etc. The whole thrust would be synergic. Historians could try to chart a history of ideas from the ever increasing data they have to work with, biologists could challenge the economists tendancy to maximise the outputs of economic systems with homology & ecological truths. Just as alchemists survived for hundreds of years based on the lie that it was possible to turn base metal into gold, modern ecomonists have chosen to believe that GNP's can grow year after year, and that trickle down truely works! I'm sure we could all list many more synergic imperatives for a well designed science that concentrates on the developement of an ecology of mind and re-sanctification of our existances.(See Gregory Bateson & Fritjof Capra.) I entered adulthood in the late 1960's and have sat on the sidelines since then watching the various strands of media creating the grand illusion in increasingly sophisticated ways, the spiritually bankrupt and walking wounded in the land of the gods. (A western perspective!). Never has so much useless data cluttered up our existances. The aim to increase our vast store of ingnorance. I find it interesting that I find more to be genuinely optimistic about in the realm of comic books than I do in say New Scientist.
I would welcome any ideas on the nature of how to develope a sense of universal responsibility to protect and nurture the global family and to preserve and tend to the environment (both physical & memetic) in which we all live.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
10:46 / 24.06.03
>0<:

There's a difference between your wants not being satisfied and your being unfree.
 
 
No star here laces
15:28 / 24.06.03
i.e. in a competitive milieu, not everyone gets to be a winner, and the more even the playing field the more this smarts...
 
 
—| x |—
15:46 / 24.06.03
“There's a difference between your wants not being satisfied and your being unfree.”

Really—ya’ think?! (sorry, slight flippancy there…it’s only that, ever since our debate in “What is Faith?,” I feel that you have been calculatedly trying to “catch me out” on something)

If you look at the context in which my “unsatisfied wants” are being employed towards making a point, then I think that you’ll see why it was reasonable to make this tenuous connection. That is, Shoelaces says, “Personally, I frankly feel that my current freedom to do pretty much whatever I wish with myself much of the time is worth cultivating marketable skills for.” And my response serves to illustrate that my own personal “marketable skills” (or indeed, the “marketable skills” of most other people) do not establish that we are free to do whatever we wish. See?
 
  
Add Your Reply