[MD] Where have all the values gone?

[Michael Hamilton]

Arlo,

Great post, kudos.

On 1/10/06, Arlo J. Bensinger <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:
> 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
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>