Today, I am probably going to make some people angry. I want to talk about ideology and commercialism and the blurring of the two in modern society. It's, oddly enough, something that's been on my mind a lot lately.

Let's start with ideology. Merrian Webster has this to say about the word ideology: 1) Visionary theorizing. 2a) A systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture. 2b) A manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture. 2c) The integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program. The second set of definitions are the ones that most interest me. Now I would ask a question: who are the leading ideological bodies in our modern era? I would propose the following: Churches and Cults, the government, and the media.

I would note the relationships between these entities. Churches and cults rely, to a small extent, on the media for dissemination of their ideologies. The media is beholden to the government in various ways (most notably the FCC). The government has an uneasy truce with churches (that is, in times when the government is most likely to be primary driver of popular ideology, i.e. wartime, churches generally fall in line). After WWII we saw a shift away from the government and back to churches. Now I think we find ourselves in a new and unique situation. The emphasis seems to have been slowly shifting from churches to the media.

So. Who controls the media? I think the answer here is sort of obvious. Corporations. Commercial interests. That's kind of a frightening prospect especially when you consider that, while church and state at least claim to serve people, corporations exist for one and one reason only: to make money.

That said, I would now ask what ideology these commercial interests are selling? I'm guessing it's going to be something that serves to make them more money... lessee... how about stuff==happiness? That would seem to fit the bill nicely. Hrmm.. it's going to take more than that, though, because there is only so much stuff that people can own. Ah-ha! How about this: how about we sell the idea that some stuff is better than other stuff because it looks different? There we go. Voila! Trends. You see where I'm going with this, I guess.

Right now we are in a particularly interesting situation because there are still a lot of people that are taking their ideologies from religion. Religions, however, have realized that their flocks are slipping away and are responding appropriately. The whole WWJD campaign is a brilliant example of churches exercising market savvy. How far can that take them, though? I'm guessing that it's only a matter of time until corporate entities alone drive ideology.

OTOH, I have a lot of faith in humanity. I think people, especially people in my generation, are beginning to sense to emptiness and futility of the commercialist ideologies. Who knows where this will lead? It's an interesting thing to be a part of in any case.

Just a little sidebar: The World Capitalist System has, I think, been responsible for a great many injustices... and still is. However, I would venture to say that on a crimes-against-humanity scale it won't hold a candle to the emerging World Commercialist System. (I know, I know, in same ways that's different ways of saying the same thing but, at least in my mind, the difference is subtle and important).

</crackpot>

Extra

Thanks to Jaeger for the tip for today's lyric. It comes from Mr. Scruff's _Fish_. Fantastic stuff.

Links

I expect you want to know about Frogmen? Yeah. They live on fish and catch them by diving on them from a great height.
jaeger
survey says...
commercialism. in the fight club manner, we are consumers. you say it's not enough to say stuff == happiness, because one can only own so much stuff... well, that may be true, but once you have all the stuff money can buy, you can always buy more stuff for others. of course, i could be off my rocker and simply voicing my jaundiced view of the commercial world. however, it seems to me that there's always someone else who doesn't have what you have. now, that begs the question of why you would spend your hard-earned (or not) money on someone other than yourself? plenty of reasons there, really. love, greed, business, debt, etc. anyway, that one's been done to death, i'll leave it at that... lessee.. otherwise you've got the so-called 'ikea nesting instinct', the 'if it's clever, i gotta have it' idea, which you sorta mentioned. considering how many people there are in the world and how varied tastes and cultures are, i don't see any kind of real tangible limit on the sheer amount of crap one can buy... sure, storage may be a problem, but not the purchase. :) ok, ramble mode off.
loophole
Well spoken...
:)

-loop
m4dd4wg
Das Kapital
Loophole,
You might find reading a section of Das Kapital by Karl Marx rewarding. While much of the tome is prognostication, Chapter 7 (don't hold me to it) lays out a couple of concepts that you might find interesting. Marx writes on alienated labor the notion that industrial societies, workers are increasingly distanced from the fruits of their labor. In an earlier era, a worker might have been able to look at a table he produced and feel a sense of satisfaction, but a worker who saws wood into table legs in a factory does not feel the same sense of satisfaction.
Marx proposes that to recover the sense of loss in alienated labor, persons turn to secondary production, where persons base identities around consumption. For example, a "hippie" makes himself a hippie by buying and wearing tie-dye, Birkenstocks, and hemp jewelry. (I'm fully aware that the original tie-dye trend in the sixties was an attempt to return production to the people...)
Marx's thesis is that consumption replaces physical production as the primary mode of cultural production in post-industrial societies. I'd have to say that's a pretty appealing argument, even modes of artistic production bear the mark of a consumerist society; the pastiche-pop of Beck often seems little more than the aggregation of eclectic styles - the music equivalent of mall culture.
Anyway, a quick survey of TV commercials (particularly for lifestyle products) will reveal that marketers attempt to convince consumers that the purchase of their product will resolve spiritual and identity crises. An Inifiniti will bring the driver inner peace, while a Toyota Paseo will turn the driver into a with-it hipster. Although recent commercials, like the Sprite ads of recent memory, are self- conciously ironic, they mock the methods of marketing, not its intent.
m4dd4wg
Who let the d4wg2 0u+?
Shit, that bold was supposed to end after "production." Like it or not, I'm gunna hafta start cuttin'&pastin' my comments from M
m4dd4wg
pinkovision
Loop, I was just thinking, you've got a sattelite dish right? You might want to check out Free Speech TV, video from independent media centers around the world. I don't know anything about subscriber services, so it might not be compatible with your system.
fathom
Fight Club

Where's Tyler when you need him? Time to bring us all back to zero.

The real kicker here is that stuff != happiness. Sure some thing that you buy might give you some sudden pleasure, but in the whole big mix of things, I can't think of one instance where something I bought made me happy and kept me happy for any extended period of time.

The interesting thing about this though is the whole stuff = happiness ideas only seems prominent in various groups of people. Most of us that consider ourselves "geeks" don't much fit into one of these groups. And probably a lot of religous wackos don't fit into either. But the brainless masses are subject stuff = happiness and they'll just be set up for the big let down.

I wonder if any of this stuff relates to the fall of the Roman empire. Did they have anything similar going on? I'm probably reaching here, but I honestly don't remember/know what the overall cause was...

Physics_chick
hmmm...
Sorry fathom, I don't think 'geeks' are any less prone to buy into the stuff = happiness syndrome. Computers and all their peripherals, DVD players, surround sound systems, CD's, nintendos and dreamcasts. That's no different than Tyler's green pinstripe sofa. But perhaps I'm only considering the high tech 'geeks' that I know.
everstar
it's not the stuff per se

I don't think it's the stuff that's dangerous, per se. it's not the question of how much stuff you have, it's how big the hollow in yourself you're trying to fill is. If you're not happy, buying more stuff won't help, but buying less won't either.

My uncle was rambling on Saturday about how we've all gotten away from the basics and how we should all just start living simple lives and how his circumstances are opulent by his standards, blah blah blah. So I asked him what a "simple life" consisted of, and it actually gave him a moment's pause, then he responded, "buy only what you need from day to day." I said, "What if you can't manage to get to the store every day?" he said, "Then your life's too complicated."

I don't think that living in a bare room with a cushion is my key to happiness. I'd get really bored. Besides, the way society is structured, it won't allow it. For me, the quest for happiness is finding work that keeps me engaged and interested and my mind in gear. The stuff I buy is used in achieving that goal. Okay, and entertaining me along the way.

What it comes down to for me is, I'm reasonably content with who I am, and therefore, the amount of stuff I have doesn't matter.

m4dd4wg
Generation NeXt
I was poking through the Oklahoma Daily's archives, and ran across this old column that I thought was particularly germane.
loophole
Some additional thoughts...

A little knowlege is a dangerous thing, I suppose. I find that the more I think about these topics that interest me the more I find they tie together. Take, for example, capitalism and ecology. Bad ecological practices are compounded by advanced capitalist societies and, conversely, the ecological disaster we are in the midst of fosters the growth of capitalist thinking.

Anyway...

This has been a great thread of discussion. It really delights me that all of you take the time to read and think about this stuff. It's very flattering. Thank you.

I think what I might like to do is make this more of an open forum. I'll keep making entries as sporadically as ever but I think I'll add a process whereby you all can post your thoughts, as well. Would you guys have any interest in this?

...

I'm going to give Marx a try, if nothing else it should give me a more solid framework for this kind of thinking. Any other recommended reading on this topic (or any others)?

-Loop

everstar
more reading
Buddhists always have a lot to say on the accumulation of stuff and its hindering effect on the quest for enlightenment.
m4dd4wg
Book Recs.
A Primer for Daily Life by Susan Willis is a really good place to start, probably better than Marx. It drills into feminst thought quite a bit, though, so I'm sure you'll probably put it down and go back to whatever George Will book you were reading. ;) Other super books include Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman, Television :technology and cultural formby Raymond Williams, which may be out of print, and a collection of essays from The Baffler, Commodify Your Dissent is both amusing and enlightening.