The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
Well, many of us would disagree with details rather the overall thrust of it.
Sure. Where I essentially disagree is with assumptions that suggest people cannot desire and seek material possessions while also maintaining values and culture. I don't think most people judge others by their possessions. There is a word for people who do, and it's used quite often: "shallow". I don't make friends based upon their wealth. I do so based upon whether I enjoy being around them. ("This person is intelligent, funny, trustworthy, etc.") Some people do, of course, judge others on possessions, but I submit that they are a fairly small minority. There were a few people like that when I was in high school -- usually girls who used the word "like" fifty times in a sentence -- but they were always judged by everyone else to be braindead Materialists.
I also disagree with glorifying the values and norms of our ancestors above our own. I can guarantee than many, and probably most, Americans' ancestors were racists, that they were homophobic, that religion played much too large a role in their ideas, and so on. They used the word "empire" as though it were something to be proud of. Today, we hear the word "empire" and understand it -- rightly, in my view -- to be a bad thing. The overwhelming majority of people cringe at the American legacy of slavery, even though we weren't the ones who were guilty of it. In our ancestors' day, it wasn't simply argued that blacks were inferior. It was assumed. Today, most people would shout down anyone who even attempted the argument.
Values evolve, thankfully, and we can watch them evolve even today, as in the case of the same-sex marriage debate here in the states. (Initially, people were very much opposed to it, but the polls I've seen seem to suggest that the public is getting used to the idea.) And, in some ways, I think capitalism inherently has a role to play in this by pushing the envelope -- in style, music, and plenty of other areas related to culture. (Whether you and I, as individuals, like these new trends is another issue. I, for one, hate most modern music.) There was a show here in the states called "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" -- not sure if it ever aired in Europe (knowing networks today, it might have originated there, for all I know) -- that became, for a brief period, the biggest hit in the country. Thirty years ago, the network would've lost advertising dollars for running such a show.
It pushed the envelope, and in a great way, in my opinion, because I think traditional values were disgusting on the issue of gay rights. And the really great thing about it is that it changes minds without public policy -- integration instead of only desegregation, as Dr. King put it (speaking on civil rights rather than gay rights, though). I, obviously, think public policy should be involved in this issue, just as public officials were involved back during the civil rights era, but these sorts of things make the task easier for progressives in government (fewer people to convince that the old values were ridiculous).
I disagree fully with the idea that our thoughts and spirit have been robbed, as well. It suggests, to me at least, that we are all mindless: that our thoughts are always clouded with a "Buy, Buy, Buy!" banner, or something to that effect. I don't think that is the case. We don't make friends because of their possessions. In the West, at least, we don't choose husbands and wives based upon the opportunity social mobility. We make these personal decisions based upon our preferences. I think Marx made a mistake by talking about markets as though they only dealt with consumers, producers, investors, workers, governments, and other actors in the economy. The concept goes well beyond economics and political soundbites. We're also acting in a market framework when we make decisions about our friends, family, political views, religion, and so on.
Hope that made some sense. I'm about to pass out from the heat here. It's only April, and already the damned temperatures are getting into the 80s. Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
Considering that most Western economies are huge machines dedicated to making people make stuff and then buy stuff they don't need, don't really want and can't afford anyway, I don't think there's much evidence to support the idea that our values aren't materialistic.
Economies could be assessed on the amount of scientific innovation, art, and intellectual property they produce. Instead we get GDP and 'growth' - material values.
There is no 'marketplace' for ideas because ideas don't cost anything. No one buys and sells ideas - except in the limited commercial setting in which IP is sometimes bought and sold.
You can agree or disagree with an idea at no direct personal cost. You can persuade or dissuade others at no direct personal cost.
So how is this a market?
And as Poemless pointed out, there is a huge difference between commercial advertising, which has more in common with the pro-party posters and slogans you'd find in the old Soviet states (only the people are better dressed and the colours are brighter), and public debate and discussion, which is based on persuading opponents by engaging with their ideas directly.
As opposed to yelling in their ear with a constant barrage of jingles and catchy video sequences.
If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas. — George Bernard Shaw
a totalising ideology is one that captures all metaphorical space in discourse as well as control of physical structures and processes in facespace.
this is colloquially expressed as "if all you have is a hammer then everything looks like a nail."
I could get into conceptual connections between totalising ideology and monocropping, etc. -- but perhaps the most succinct subversion is from our old friend physics: if you try to understand light as particles it doesn't really work, and if you try to understand it as waves it doesn't really work. both metaphors need to be in play at once, mutually contradictory and mutually necessary. which is a feature of complex systems...
but we'll be off to Happy Planet of the Verbositoids if I don't slam on the brakes here... The difference between theory and practise in practise ...
I was replying to Migeru, who opined: Interesting metaphors, those: argumentation as advertising and the "market of ideas". Not everyone shares them. I find them annoying. The difference between theory and practise in practise ...
That's a rather relativist approach. All movements or social changes require persuding people to get on board, so I don't think we can judge the merits of one system or another on that alone.
As for "advertising", I might be parsing words, but telling people who don't have the right to vote that you think they should have it, who don't have the right to organize, ditto, who are starving due to class inqualities that you think that removing those inequalities will provide them with more sustenance is hardly comparable to pressuring people to buy things they do not need whatsoever to survive so that you can get rich.
Abolishionists had to convince people to follow them. So did the NeoCons. But one group wanted to make all people's lives better, and one wanted to make their own lives better.
Calling it a "marketplace of ideas" rewards those who best sell their ideas, not those with the best ideas. Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
The philosophical core that Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes inserted into the freedom of speech debate over 78 years ago continues to beat like a young heart in the body of First Amendment law. His words were at the center of the U.S. Supreme Court's reasoning when on June 26 in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, it struck down the Communications Decency Act as a violation of the Constitution. In 1919, Justice Holmes filed a dissent in Abrams v. United States in which he created the powerful and enduring "marketplace of ideas" metaphor to encapsulate the concept of freedom of speech. In the marketplace metaphor, ideas compete against one another for acceptance -- with the underlying faith that truth will prevail in such an open encounter. Borrowing from John Milton's "Areopagitica" (1644) and John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" (1859), Holmes wrote in his Abrams dissent: "But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas -- that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market ... . That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment." Justice Holmes' pivotal concept gradually became the controlling metaphor in First Amendment jurisprudence. His voice was present in the high court's decision striking down the CDA.
In 1919, Justice Holmes filed a dissent in Abrams v. United States in which he created the powerful and enduring "marketplace of ideas" metaphor to encapsulate the concept of freedom of speech. In the marketplace metaphor, ideas compete against one another for acceptance -- with the underlying faith that truth will prevail in such an open encounter.
Borrowing from John Milton's "Areopagitica" (1644) and John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" (1859), Holmes wrote in his Abrams dissent: "But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas -- that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market ... . That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment."
Justice Holmes' pivotal concept gradually became the controlling metaphor in First Amendment jurisprudence. His voice was present in the high court's decision striking down the CDA.
by gmoke - Nov 28
by gmoke - Nov 12 9 comments
by Oui - Dec 5
by Oui - Dec 41 comment
by Oui - Dec 2
by Oui - Dec 126 comments
by Oui - Dec 16 comments
by gmoke - Nov 303 comments
by Oui - Nov 3012 comments
by Oui - Nov 2838 comments
by Oui - Nov 2713 comments
by Oui - Nov 2511 comments
by Oui - Nov 24
by Oui - Nov 221 comment
by Oui - Nov 22
by Oui - Nov 2119 comments
by Oui - Nov 1615 comments
by Oui - Nov 154 comments
by Oui - Nov 1319 comments
by Oui - Nov 1224 comments
by gmoke - Nov 129 comments