So I realize this suppose to be about only one of the articles from class but I'm compelled to point out a common theme (probably obvious but I thought it subtle) in Elliot's Better than Well and Frank's Emily's Scars: the driving force behind each is how we influence each other, piped back into a monstrous feedback loop we leaves us unable to resolve the issues we co-generated. Frank points out that most of these surgeries can be boiled down to issues with self-image crises - "beautiful people" telling the masses what to wear and how the next version of sexy looks, the fear of aging, getting fat, bald, and (gasp) unhip, and the stares of strangers all deteriorate to the foundation whether we happy with ourselves, as-is. The question ultimately being when is enough enough. Elliot talks about how foolishly capitalistic Americans are. Having lived in Southern California for 5 years of my adult life, I've witnessed too many co-workers with either extravagant cars, homes, clothing or all of the above - why? Elliot suggests an answer even though his focus is on the impact that corporate interests in pharmaceutical has on detection, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases. He references a gent named David Riesman for the term "other-directed" consumer; the consumer who doesn't want to miss out on all the great things that someone else gets to have.
Back to the feedback loop: Riesman's idea of consumerism spans all of our culture (I believe). The poor want to be rich (the lotto), the ugly - beautiful (plastic surgery), the old wish for their youth, the sick healthy, the sad happy, etc. It would seem that only the insane want nothing in Riesman's theory, which makes sense since they are probably having an experience that few of us can really imagine. In any case, we all want what the satisfaction that others are experiencing, and our society keys in on this fact - advertising, and in time we start to question who we are. None of want to be the "have-nots", the only variable is whether the object of desire is a sharp mind, a few extra inches of reach, a sweet car to ride in style, a super multimedia phone to stay connected, or a face that feels like it's genuinely yours.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Matt, you make some great points here. When I was reading Elliots article, I honed in on the idea of "self-transformation" vs. "self-deception". This concept speaks directly to the "problem" with consumers caught in your so-called "feedback loop". The question is, where is line drawn that separates transformation and deception; furthermore, exactly who has the authority to draw such a line (if it even exists). It hard to know if a consumer can in fact change his or her "self", and judging from the concepts you've outline and cited in your post, most consumers seem to be driven by self-deception.
ReplyDeletegreat to see Riesman mentioned; read him as a sophomore and maybe that's why I'm here now. 'Other directed: for Frank (and Elliot) it seems to be key that somebody ELSE (fashion industry, culture industry, industry) is making your decisions--even if you think it's you.
ReplyDeleteAgency. Who's in charge.