[MD] Where have all the values gone?

[Platt Holden]

Hi Arlo.

Interesting point of view, as always. The question I have is "Why is
consumerism as you describe it immoral?" In other words, on what basis have
you decided that "manipulating what people value" is bad? Also I'd like to
know how you tell the value "inherent in a product" as opposed to its
manipulative value?

Platt

Quoting "Arlo J. Bensinger" <ajb102 at psu.edu>:

> Khaled, Platt, Erin,
> 
> "Consumerism" is by definition "over consumption". The problem is that
> "consumerism" depends on value manipulation to fuel spending. Platt
> disagrees
> with this, but years of "The Journal of Consumer Psychology" has
> underscored
> the simple premise that advertising manipulates what people value.
> 
> "Consumerism" is a "meta-problem" associated with this, when the primary
> message
> becomes "if you spend money, you'll be happy". Businesses function, then,
> on a
> dependency on value manipulation, not simply the value inherent in
> their
> product.
> 
> In modern culture, the Sophists "man is the measure of all things" has
> been
> replaced with "money is the measure of all things". We derive our worth
> from
> it, with it and through it. It defines greatness and failure. It
> defines
> success and defeat. Rich and poor become good and bad. 
> 
> What we value, Pirsig said, is always derived through cultural means.
> Culture is
> the sum total of collective activity among a people. When that
> collective
> activity is guided by nothing but money, when we are taught from an early
> age
> that it is only partcipation in a money economy that motivates great
> people to
> enrich themselves (and incidentally improve society), when our cultural
> dialogue is constantly bombarded with the notion that "privatization"
> and
> "private property" are the noble Goods to the evils of community and a
> public
> commons, when our very self-worth is dependent on our consumer purchases,
> I'm
> not sure what kind of success one can have combatting consumerism.
> 
> I read an interesting article about the amount of time we spend "engaged
> in
> public spaces" versus "private spaces". Over the past century, since
> these
> "moral pilgrims" arrived on our shores, we have moved the vast majority
> of our
> activity from public to private space. We retreat into our homes, into
> our
> cars, into our narrowly defined daily routine that moves us from private
> space
> to private space, while a century ago our involvement was primarily in
> some
> public space. Interestingly, the authored included metaphorical public
> and
> private spaces, citing the changes in involvement in the local taverns
> and
> coffee houses. A century ago, a person venturing into one of these
> establishments not only expected, but demanded public engagement and
> public
> forum (although the establishment itself was "private"). Today, not only
> are
> these establishments "private", but we demand our engagement to be
> restricted
> to an immediate cohort of known interlocuters in a "private dialogue"
> that is
> not only to the public.
> 
> Why did we "value" public engagement so greatly then, and conversely
> value
> "private" seclusion so greatly today? Why did we stroll our
> neighborhoods,
> talking with people who made a daily habit of sitting on their front
> porches,
> when now we drive through developments only to see distant images of
> people on
> their rear decks?
> 
> Consumerism depends on manipulating value to tie self-worth to
> purchasing.
> Private property tells us that we must own everything ourselves, that
> any
> common or public space is "bad". Put the two together, and you have a
> good
> description of modern America, a land where we are debting ourselves
> into
> oblivion to build castles of isolation.
> 
> Just some thoughts...
> 
> Arlo


-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/