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 >

Aspiration Sets and You

  
 
*
00:02 / 29.03.06
An example in Temple reminded me that I've been meaning to create a thread on aspiration sets for awhile.

An aspiration set is, simply, a group of desires. One way to create a desire for a product is to tie it to other desires which the target group might have. The way you figure this out is by knowing what your target market is, how they construct their identities, and what desires are associated with their identities. These things are always estimates based on broad stereotypes; nonetheless, they work often enough that marketing people keep using them.

Kaos Majik kids, for example, are invested in seeming revolutionary and radical. They value certain symbols as representing their identity, such as the chaosphere and the hand of Eris. They consider themselves more individual than all other individuals, and as such their group identity is easily targeted by marketing toward identity. Their aspiration set would include such things as "radical" clothes which mark them as different, books which explain how they can use kaos majik to become more powerful and more revolutionary, things which are associated with self-directed irony (such as, perhaps, a silver runespork with a chaosphere on it), things with the symbols of their collective identity on them.

I'm a member of several identity groups with different aspiration sets. For instance, as an American liberal, I want to show that I oppose the Bush administration, so I might be tempted to buy things which have anti-Bush messages on them. I am suspicious of capitalism and marketing, so I am more likely to buy things which are marketed as individually hand-made or fair-trade, or are marketed with "antimarketing" techniques such as ironic ads and word-of-mouth campaigns. I'm a trans man, and some of the desires in my aspiration set are associated with that— I am likely to buy clothing in very small men's sizes, for instance. I think of myself as an academic, and I have a certain fondness for symbols I see as associated with academia, like nicely bound books and tweed jackets. As unique as I may think I am, there are many many ways in which my professing my unique and individual identity actually makes me part of a collective which is vulnerable to certain kinds of manipulation based on our aspiration sets.

And it needn't only be for material things. Ideas can be sold this way too. When someone explains a concept using very erudite language and referencing other thinkers whose works are considered influential, I may give it more credence because it matches up with my academic aspiration set. If I identified myself as an anti-intellectual type, I might give an idea more credence if it were marketed to me with "down-home, just us reglar joes here" kinda talk. The language of science is often used inaccurately to target people who invest science with more credibility than other kinds of knowing, but who don't necessarily know much about it themselves. They might have the aspiration of having their ideas be scientifically validated.

I also identify myself as a compassionate person, and this makes me vulnerable to manipulation based on my sense of what a compassionate person would or should do. If I feel like that identity is threatened— i.e., I've been accused of being cruel or insufficiently compassionate— I'm likely to engage in predictable kinds of behaviors to prove this isn't so.

Think a bit about what components make up your identity, and how this affects your aspiration sets. What kinds of manipulation does this make you vulnerable to? I'd like to stress that I think everyone has these vulnerabilities, and this is not about separating the Wolfles from the Sheeple.

(I'd also be glad to see people identify where this theory comes from, because I've only heard it talked about briefly in an anthropology course and don't know its roots.)
 
 
Woodsurfer
10:55 / 05.04.06
When I was little, the only forms of advertising were billboards, radio and TV and newspapers and magazines. My parents tended to buy off-brands because they cost less, not having to bear the expense of advertising. Off brand did not mean "no name" at that time. There was no such thing as a "life style". As a result, I've grown up absolutely hating the pervasive, invasive marketing of freakin' everything. I don't "buy into" the notion that we are first and foremost "consumers".

The idea that people who self-identify as "individualists" would buy mass-marketed items to show off their membership in a group of like-minded individualists makes so little sense to me that I don't quite know what to do with it. At the same time, I know that the impulse was there when I was young; we all wore army surplus jackets and fatigue pants as an ironic protest of the Vietnam War (I think -- or maybe because we saw it on TV). The late Frank Zappa quipped between songs at one of his concerts in the '60s, "Every one of you in this room is wearing a uniform and don't kid yourself".
[rant mode off]
 
 
alas
14:05 / 05.04.06
I'd like to stress that I think everyone has these vulnerabilities, and this is not about separating the Wolfles from the Sheeple.

I'd like to re-stress this. As I've grown older, I think I've noticed this more, in myself, not less. I think I'm making an independent decision to, say, switch to Mac from my PC...lo and behold it's a pretty obvious fit with marketing predictions for people like me.

I related to most of the things you said, (id)entity, and I like the way you connected it to ideas--because marketing is simply an economically-motivated form of persuasion. We would not be human if we were not responsive to persuasive acts by other humans; we are tribal animals, first and foremost, I think--not individuals. There's no shame in that.

There is an irony that the more individual you believe yourself to be, the more you may be leaving yourself vulnerable to being manipulated. In fact, if you believe yourself impermeable to marketing, that's actually exactly where marketers want you to be, because you're not watching out for it, protecting yourself, wary.
 
 
All Acting Regiment
22:58 / 05.04.06
I think that the idea of "critical thinking" is far more useful than, and nearly always overlooked in favour of, the idea of "thinking for yourself". The latter is by default the perfect way of selling something to us: it combines selfishness with a sense of acheivement over other people. Meanwhile, the former, by definition, is much harder to use in this way because it doesn't involve separating people into little easy-target audiences.

Probably that's why the latter is so predominant everywhere you look, both in and out of the "counter-culture".
 
 
Flegetanis
22:54 / 27.04.06
While I rexent the truth of it, I do buy into the fact that we are indeed raised to be - first and foremost - consumers.

One thing that has really gotten under my skin in the past few years is the mass marketing of "radical" cutlure to the point where two things are undermined: the validity of any individual expression found by identifying with the "radical" symbol or product, and the undermining of "radical" culture in & of itself when it is reduced to a consumer good.

I've seen this alot in a number of alternative spiritual paths. The consumerization of Wicca is clearly evident, both in "Hot Topic"/Goth fashion, and in the Wicca "industry" which has reduced the path itself to the next quick consumer fix of a book, candle, method, tradition. etc.

Meanwhile, another thing I've noticed - and which particularly irks me - is the reduction of great spiritual, religious, and mythological archetypes into - literally and figuratively - comic book heroes (Vertigo titles aside!).

The pillaging of pantheons for names, characters, and villians in Anime, videogames, RPGs, etc., has really gotten to me. I find that alot of people geting into Magick these days are getting it from these commercial sources, and get quite offended when confronted with historic and literary sources.

To me, thios seems to tap into the egregore in such a way that strengthens the power of the sale, but weakens the spiritual content of the image being sold.
 
 
yami
05:25 / 28.04.06
A good portion of the responses I get to my [dating site redacted] profile can be reduced to "OMG we share the same aspiration set, it's Twoo Wuv!!". I can never decide if this is because people have wholly bought into the idea that our identities can be defined as the intersection of our consumer/lifestyle choices, or because they simply recognize that dating is a marketing game and aspiration sets are how marketing games are played.
 
 
trouser the trouserian
07:43 / 28.04.06
If we're going to talk about the 'consumerisation' of spiritual ideologies, then I wonder if it's possible to identify a historical point when they were not consumerised? I think an inherent problem with this argument is that one of the primary ways that knowledge is disseminated in Western culture is via books - which are, after all, commercial products. After all, if Gerald Gardner hadn't written "Witchcraft Today" in 1954, modern Wicca would not be what it is now. Similarly, if Peter J. Carroll hadn't convinced Samuel Weiser's to do a mass edition of "Liber Null & Psychonaut" back in 1987, it's arguable that Chaos Magic wouldn't have taken off as a cultural phenomena in quite the way it has done.

I wrote a parody back in 1991 on the relationship between modern magick & advertising: Astral Advertising: a Modern Occult Menace? which some might find amusing.
 
 
werwolf
07:57 / 28.04.06
(id)entity, i absolutely agree.

yet i believe this to be a very human and almost archaic thing. it might be that we are currently experienceing an amplified version of it, but i doubt that it's something new. actually i'd go as far as to say that any hierarchy or social system is built on this principle. the function you have becomes your identity becomes who you are predetermines what you will be (to a certain extent). it's no mere coincidence that last names in many cultures etymologically refer to professions and functions. extending the defintion of "function" and "purpose" (within a social context) to today's technological, cultural and social circumstances indicates that any position you hold within your society is after all a 'job' that needs to be done. it's very much like the cultural clash between 'mainstream' and 'underground' - one cannot exist without the other and both will always remain in perpetual flow. of course, a "function" these days doesn't necessarily mean a craft or physically productive activity. being an admirer of a certain part of culture - for instance, being a collector of fine arts - or any other preference is a function, too. so, by 'consuming' products (material or non-material) we are not only generating an identity for ourselves or validating our 'individuality' but we are emphasizing our function within the society we live in.

personal experience as example: i am a music junkie and have good knowledge of a variety of music genres. but looking at me there are no real give-aways as to what i prefer. so it happens quite regularly that people are surprised and find it hard to believe that i know anything about or listen to electro / krautrock / soul / noise / [insert genre here]. i do not display my function - people tend to get confused. yet a look at my cd collection would tell all about me and my inclinations and what i consume and to what sort of marketing i am susceptible.

so, i suggest that it is not our identity that is being displayed via superficial display items, but our function. that function and identity can be (and often will be) congruent is a different matter.
 
 
trouser the trouserian
10:21 / 28.04.06
Id
You might find this pdf'ed paper of interest - it explores the relationship between social identity and marketing:

At any given point in time consumers have a subset of Social Identities (SIs) that they may adopt in order to guide their thoughts and actions. These SIs can be very important bases for self-definition and in some instances can be the basis by which a consumer forms an attitude, or makes a judgment about a brand. In this regard, a consumer may feel connected with a brand, product or behavior simply because it is "who they are." Scholars have suggested that when a firm can create meaningful connections between the product and or service and the consumer’s psyche linked to his or her "life-style," it has important implications because an opinion, a belief, an attitude is correct, valid and proper to the extent that it is anchored in a group of people with similar beliefs, opinions, and attitudes...

From an applied standpoint, if the brand comes to represent the consumer’s social
identity intensionally and extensionally in the sense that the brand is connected to deeply
engulfing, self-defining aspects of the consumer (Oliver 1999), then the consumer would say that the object is "part of me" (cf. Kleine, Kleine and Allen 1995) i.e., an extension of the self (Belk, 1988). Arguably, the goal of successfully executing such a SI oriented marketing strategy can be more effectively met if marketing strategists had a framework that elucidates the key mechanisms of identity-driven processing and its marketing implications.
 
 
Unconditional Love
02:09 / 29.04.06
As a wolfie, i were blue jeans, white t shirts, shoes and generally try to look as casual as possible these days, i no longer wish to stand out in anyway what so ever, id much rather blend in. Its not so much about identity but price and functionality.

I own very little in the way of media items and in the last few years have taken to downloading almost everything i consume information wise, because its far more practical to read delete and move on, than it is to read store and build a collection. i dont want to be still enough to be defined by what i consume, but i am for the period it takes to consume, its actually nice that info like food can be passed out, rather than stored to gather and accumulate similar info to create an identity around whats being horded.

I dont wish to become anything just understand what it feels like to have it pass through me. I like the way that values are becoming more and more transitory and less like the authority of the static written word. Places like forums are good examples of the process as posters restate and reiterate others points, changing context and meaning as the threads grow in volume.

The increase in freely available information from p2p and other streams and the sheer bulk, means that self redefinition isnt about shelling out large amounts of cash to buy into a life style, but just taking the time to explore information avalible, and then when nessecary delete and identify with different information to see how it feels, what it provokes, what definition of self it creates.

The awareness is no longer fixed by the physicalities of infromation placed in the home as representation, but streamed and never earthed for longer than it takes to access something else.

A fluid relationship as opposed to an identity fixed by physical signifiers.
 
 
Gendudehashadenough
10:35 / 29.04.06
What kind of information (or environment) is deemed consumable by a group/firm economy and how does the conscioius-individual-as-participant vs. individual-as-target-market relationship impact the transmission of information from producer to consumer?

How well are currently models for composing marketing strategies directed towards the asspiration sets people construct to interact with the group identificative (not a word: expressed?) advertising?
 
 
Flegetanis
13:43 / 29.04.06
Trouser:

That "Astral Advertising" essay was cute.

I get what you're saying above, but the examples you give are the exceptions rather than examples of what I'm talking about. I'm also more concerned with the saturation of the market with diluted symbolism - something that didn't exist when Gardner published Witchcraft Today - that weakens the spiritual "quest" rather than strengthening it.

As I stated, my real concern is with pop media reducing archetypes into such things as videogame charaters, t-shirt icons, and sensationalist lyrics that the consumer niether understands nor cares to learn about beyond it's commercial context. One easy example is the "Final Fantasy" villian Sephiroth, another is the rendering of Egyptian gods into villians on the show "SG:1". Then there's the "Otherkin" Pagans who literally refuse to learn magic or find empowerment in any source other than a White Wolf rule book, and who get angry and defensive when referred to historical sources. Talking to them about the Odinic Berserker cults and other examples of sacred shapeshifting outcasts both venerated and feared by society is totally useless.

And it's these latter "demographics" that - by virtue of being a market - are defining the face of Wicca and Magick for society at large. When I tell people I'm Wiccan, this is the sterotype with which I'm most often confronted. I'd rather be viewed as a Satanist!

However, I do have to admit that, while I got into this path in 1973, then missed the "Wiccan explosion" while living in Jerusalem during the 1980s, the means of my introduction were through two movies! Live and Let Die turned me on to Tarot, and Bedknobs and Broomsticks sent me looking for every book I could find with a "pantacle". But, in 1973, there weren't that many; I had to do real research. Someone who is inspired today by an esoteric reference in popular media has a long journey ahead of them if they want to find qualitative meaning and context for that reference.

I've discussed this with people who find merit in the availability of such references. They argue that the arduous search required to find substantial meaning is just part of the journey, and separates the wheat from the chaff, as it were. On a certain level, I agree wholeheartedly. On another level, however, I do see that - in the United States, at least - the capacity for critical thinking has long been removed from our culture. It is not a quality that is beneficial to a consumer society. Neither is satisfaction and content, for that matter. And this is where marketing truly undermines the spirituality being "sold". If a truly useful spiritual path is put out on the market, the consumer will not need to come back for more, or to exchange it for the "new, improved model". And I see alot of marketing in the Spiritual/New Age market that really is just the next "quick fix" of a spellbook, aromatherapy system, etc.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
20:12 / 29.04.06
I think the phenomenon of marketed spirituality is an interesting one. An online aquaintance recently used the expression "pagan bling," a nifty way of summing up a tendency in certain circles to judge a person's commitment to their spiritual path by how many magic books and items they display in their homes and how much occult-themed attire and blast-mined crystal jewelery they sport. (On the other hand, of course, there are those who embrace a contrived and vigourously-flaunted form of poverty as a demonstration of their spirituality.)
 
 
Unconditional Love
21:43 / 29.04.06
Just to clarify i am not saying that poverty equals a spirtuality, in my examples above, but more that identity is not about fixed definitions of self to a certain extent any longer, a certain creolisation of culture is taking place that is making the very notion of identity syncretic imo.

It will increase as communication and genes cross more and more boundaries, I can see a point where the identities that were fought so long to establish by identity politics become no longer valid because they are no longer applicable to such a genetically and culturally mixed environment.

How does somebody of romany, english and scottish ancestry define themselves to there immediate ancestry? Or too the history of these people thay are aware of? The scots originally having come from ireland and romany from india, just how far back or forward to take that identification?
Having been sexual with both men and women, sholud a person choose a fixed sexuality and the culture of that sexuality? I personally dont think i will ever settle for any of the convnient social labels there are to define me nor should i have to be fixed into place by any form of identification politics, wether that be an ID card or for example dogmatic left wing identity politics.

Sexuality is not identity it is a temporal act, defined in the moments it takes place in, why bind the act of sex to identity? Why should it be that sexuality of any kind is used to define identity?

Race is a historical evolving process, it is not a static constant, why fixiate individual identity into a particular racial type? This i and a few friends find to be most difficult, we are all mixed race, the idea of fixed racial definition actually can leave you feeling as if you belong nowhere.

I can understand that a fixed sense of identity may bring a sense of personal stability to emotions and consciousness, but what i am trying to understand is the need to have a fixed notion of identity, to me it seems to fly in the face of the ability to adapt and survive.

It seems to me that in the past 20 years there has been a fear of increased global communication and the resulting mixture of people and cultures, i think this has manifested as people trying to reassert what they may percieve to be there core identity, wether that be nationality, race, sexuality, sub culture etc etc. I think its a fear of of an uncertain future, a future where race, sexuality, culture, philosophy and politics are not fixed values but values that are forever moving and changing shape.

A fear of planetary creolisation.
 
 
werwolf
08:01 / 02.05.06
[quote Wolfangel888] I personally dont think i will ever settle for any of the convnient social labels there are to define me nor should i have to be fixed into place by any form of identification politics, wether that be an ID card or for example dogmatic left wing identity politics. [/quote]

please, don't get me wrong (neither cirticizing nor judging at all), but what you do is actually pure identity politics. your refusal to have any of the, as you call them, "conv(e)nient social labels" stickered onto your way of life is in itself an identification process - you are identifying with that which is not labelled, with the "negative mass" of social categorization.
labelling that happens within a social context is not necessarily a hindrance to change within an environment. the application of these labels will decide what the label will do. which brings me to this:

[quote Flegetanis] As I stated, my real concern is with pop media reducing archetypes into such things as videogame charaters, t-shirt icons, and sensationalist lyrics that the consumer niether understands nor cares to learn about beyond it's commercial context. [/quote]

i think that the word "reducing" is misleading in this context. the archetypes or symbolism that is being used in such a manner is not "reduced", but applied in a different way as they were before. now this might of course lead to a change within the memetic structure of such archetypes and symbols, even going so far as to change their entire meaning (a very harsh example is probably the use of various ethnic symbols by the nazi regime of hitler, the most prominent character being the hinduist swastika, that is now, at least for most people, shifted into a symbol for that gruesome period in history as opposed to its original meaning or meanings).

which again leads me to another thought: we are not only being sold on physical items. marketing is (as was suggested earlier) a form of persuasion, thus an extension and manipulation of ideas. what marketing (in its highest form and also, imho, its most potent and dangerous form) does is hook us onto ideas. the notion that processing a set of information and then move on to the next one without pertaining to its physical manifestations can just as well be marketed to (and it is being done, too). i think it is plain unrealistic to believe oneself to be "safe" from marketing, or let's call it by its most extreme name, propaganda at all. the best that one can do, imo, is to be as aware as possible as to what we take in and how it relates to our environment and to try to always have a set of subvertive arguments at hand, just for one's own sake. for instance, if someone thinks that being an active protector of the rain forest is a good idea and has lots of information about this topic, the same person should also have (even if it might seem ridiculous to him/her) a set of arguments how protecting the rain forest will not achieve anything at all or be a bad idea. that way we can position ourselves more consciously and probably have a better awareness of how different information streams of marketing relate to our own positions.

and this in turn brings me back to the original topic of this thread and aspiration sets. recognizing which aspiration sets we have subscribed to is the first step, but i think it is a good idea to also recognize the opposite of one's own aspiration set, let's call them the "positive set" (the aspiration set that one accepts) and the "negative set" (the opposite set, the things we cannot accept). by setting up these two poles within our consciousness we can (i assume through own experience) become more aware of where manipulation happens within our individual relations (to whatever). whether that prevents this manipulation from bearing success or not is entirely different matter.
 
 
trouser the trouserian
08:05 / 03.05.06
Flegetanis

As I stated, my real concern is with pop media reducing archetypes into such things as videogame charaters, t-shirt icons, and sensationalist lyrics that the consumer niether understands nor cares to learn about beyond it's commercial context. One easy example is the "Final Fantasy" villian Sephiroth, another is the rendering of Egyptian gods into villians on the show "SG:1". Then there's the "Otherkin" Pagans who literally refuse to learn magic or find empowerment in any source other than a White Wolf rule book, and who get angry and defensive when referred to historical sources. Talking to them about the Odinic Berserker cults and other examples of sacred shapeshifting outcasts both venerated and feared by society is totally useless.

You might find the Postmodern magick thread useful in this context - in which the merits & problems of using "pop culture magic" icons & understandings were (at times, hotly) debated. However, I tend to think that its not so much that archetypes/symbols are 'reduced' or diluted, and more that they are recontextualised - and as werwolf illustrated with the example of the swastika, this is something that is a continual process - and a complex one. For example, if you look at the history of western 'readings' of the Indian goddess Kali - then the identification of Kali as a demonic 'crone' goddess (as portrayed in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom) goes back to the eighteenth century. For me, the issue is not so much that simplistic media presentations of complex belief systems exist (and although you're focusing on consumer products one could equally look at the effect of the world-wide web in this process) but how far they become deployed as valid informational sources.

Someone who is inspired today by an esoteric reference in popular media has a long journey ahead of them if they want to find qualitative meaning and context for that reference.

Whilst this is true, the flipside of course is that they can - provided the motivation is there - and one could argue that this is due to the growth of interest in religious studies which enables publishers to print material which previously, might not have gained an audience outside of the academy.

Advocates of 'pop magic' of course might say that the contemporary portrayal of esoteric material is enough - indeed that it is more appropriate to use modern material than 'historical' sources.

Another point which relates to your argument is the relationship between the portrayal of magical traditions in popular media (film, computer games etc.,)- which, if I understand you correctly, you see as having a negative impact. As far as I know, there has been little research in this area, although there has been some studies of the 1970s Indian film "Jai Santoshi Ma" and how it caused a relatively minor Indian goddess to become popular throughout the subcontinent and how audiences treated the screenings as religious experiences.
 
 
ibis the being
19:36 / 03.05.06
Does anyone know whether the term "aspiration set" comes from anthropology or from the advertising industry? I've never heard it before but I am familiar with the concept being described.

I identify myself as a "blue-collar" laborer, which has its particular aspiration set, certainly. (A colleague of mind once coined the term "Yullie" or young urban laborer to describe me.) I think this is a common aspiration set where I live, and you can see it in the way a lot of things are marketed here - not the least of which being the Boston Red Sox. The Sox at their recent pinnacle in 2003 & 2004 embodied the aspiration sets of so many Bostonians, this working-class identity. They had unkempt hair, facial hair, dirty helmets, baggy pants, they made a lot of self-deprecating, jokey, or "regular-guy" public remarks...

"Now us overcoming that deficit from the Yankees, us not being very smart, us just playing baseball, I mean, that's the bottom line." - Johnny Damon in 04

"All the tools they talk about, like I always say, I don't have a toolbox, but I do love this game more than anybody. Manny can hit the ball anywhere he wants. My tool? I love my teammates. I love my clubhouse. I love just hanging out, and soaking all of this in, because it's such a short career." - Kevin Millar in 04

It's no accident the players looked the way they did and were shown on TV saying those things. To me this is a big part of the genius of the Red Sox management team, to have perceived and manipulated that aspiration set so well. Ask a Sox fan why they hate the Yankees so much, and you'll get a baseball answer about the players, the payroll, the history, etc. (And if you're not familiar with the rivalry, Red Sox fans shout "Yankees Suck" at basketball games and other totally unrelated events, it's that pervasive.) Ask me, I think a big part of it is because the Yankees aspiration set is the antithesis of ours. The Yanks wear pinstripes, they're meticulously clean, they have strict rules on haircuts and facial hair, and they are more reserved in public statements. Their aspiration set is "classy" and "classic," and bound to a totally different kind of social identity.
 
 
Unconditional Love
23:08 / 03.05.06
Point taken werwolf, id never have considered the idea of a negative mass as identity, but it does seem to stand in your presentation, and could well be duely marketed too.

I think the idea of being defined and pinned down, identified really bugs me, its a freedom issue, a limitation that removes an act of personal creation, because the voice of indentification is contextualised by something other than self thought process, which is movment around concepts rather than labelling to identify.

To identify with the thoughts themselves rather than say the movement and articulation of those thoughts seems kind of alien. To say that iam these clothes or these thoughts or this music or these movies, is in a sense to define by appearence rather than being, or what i understand by being.

The awareness to articulate thoughts or think and dream is the surface of a process of self creation/manifestation that isnt locked into a state of expression(s), but a continual movement, a mercurial urgency.

An aspiration setting would i think have to include architecture( in my estimation a very powerful identity provider) and relationships to environment. Also i think identity is more a process of social process, the elements of others drawn into the being of ourselves, and then the art they consume becomes a factor in how that effects them and subsequently us.
 
 
werwolf
07:19 / 04.05.06
[quote Wolfangel888] I think the idea of being defined and pinned down, identified really bugs me, its a freedom issue, a limitation that removes an act of personal creation, because the voice of indentification is contextualised by something other than self thought process, which is movment around concepts rather than labelling to identify. [/quote]

yes, i agree with you. i believe this is one of the major maladies pestering most human beings. while on one hand we strive to become an individual and find ourselves, we have on the other hand a deeply embedded sense of social dependency and community. trying to find the balance there is a hard enough job as it is, but simultanously media and markets are trying to contact and persuade us and use (obviously) the most personal and close things they can find for doing just that. it began with material items, but has not stopped there and is spreading out ever more into the realms of values, ideas and expectations. thus creating and mantaining an identity that fits us and at the same time really is individual becomes increasingly harder. to treat a serious matter lightly: major frustration ensues.

[quote ibis and hound] Does anyone know whether the term "aspiration set" comes from anthropology or from the advertising industry? I've never heard it before but I am familiar with the concept being described. [/quote]

vaguely remembering that the term itself comes from marketing 101, but cannot say if this is only my memory playing tricks on me.
% but maybe we are also looking at a bastardization of the medical term. %
 
 
trouser the trouserian
08:39 / 04.05.06
Ibis
I haven't come across the term "aspiration set" in any anthropological literature - it seems to be more in use in advertising theory. A more common term is "aspiration groups". There has been great deal of research in consumer psychology regarding Reference Groups and consumer behaviour - the overall concept being that Reference Groups are groups to whom an individual looks to as a basis for self-appraisal or as a source of personal standards. Basically, there are three 'types' of reference group: (a) Membership Groups - groups to which the individual belongs (i.e. family, friends, workgroups, clubs, etc.) (b) Aspiration Groups - groups to which the individual wants to belong to, and (c) Dissociative Groups - groups to which the individual wants to distance themselves from. Both (b) and (c) can be distinct, 'concrete' groupings, or more vague notions of 'others'. Again, consumer psychology suggests three main ways in which Reference Groups influence an individual consumer's behaviour. Informational influence occurrs when individuals use the behaviour/opinions of the group as useful knowledge. Normative influence occurrs when a consumer fulfills group expectations to gain a reward or avoid a sanction, and Identification influence occurrs when a consumer has internalised group values and norms. Much of this comes from Social Comparison theory.

Thinking back to Id's comment earlier about chaos magic having an "investment in seeming revolutionary and radical" - I'd suggest that this element of the subculture's attraction arose fairly early on whilst the subculture was at a formative stage - and emerged from within. I recall an advert for an early CM audio tape produced in the mid-1980s "Dare YOU enter the Chaochamber?" which ran in a low-circulation magical fanzine.
 
 
Bruno
20:08 / 07.05.06
This is a really strong thread, every single post well thought out.

Trouserarian’s last post reminds me of some sociolinguistics and contact linguistics stuff I have read on ‘code-marking’.
The basic idea as I remember it is that we can choose between different ‘codes’, for example, to speak more posh or more streetwise. By using a particular code you identify yourself as a member of an in-group, disidentify yourself from someone else by sharply contrasting your code with theirs, you can appear friendly towards someone else by using elements of their code, and so on. The code can take a wide variety of forms, it can range from simple rules of pronunciation (saying yes or yeah or yeh) to choice of vocabulary (policemen or cops or pigs) going on to sentence structure and entire discourse strategies.

(id)entity gives a good example: “When someone explains a concept using very erudite language and referencing other thinkers whose works are considered influential, I may give it more credence because it matches up with my academic aspiration set. If I identified myself as an anti-intellectual type, I might give an idea more credence if it were marketed to me with "down-home, just us reglar joes here" kinda talk.”

I find it gets much weirder when you redefine language to apply to things like body language and in fact to any ritual (social act), they can all be interpreted as being code-marked in some way. And body language for example is being marketted to us quite frequently.

As to what constitutes identity, I agree with fluidity and the ability to adapt (especially wolfangel’s ‘Sexuality is not identity it is a temporal act’), but on the other hand a solidified and earthed identity is fundamental for growth. For example when I lived in the US I knew some ecological pacificist type people, but when the towers fell they changed very quickly to believing that afghanistan should be bombed. To my mind that just shows what a shallow and fickle sense of self they had, when it could just be swept away from under them by the media and mass hysteria.
 
  
Add Your Reply