Tuesday, June 15, 2004
though Jane mag isn't evidently interested in entering the digital age and thus I can't link to the story, the latest issue ("Summer"?) has an article on Dov Charney of American Apparel. The article is provocative and maybe even a bit disturbing from a certain perspective due to the way sex operates in the marketing of his product. In my understanding of the most dominant strain of feminist politics, his playful sexuality which seems to sort of blend sex and work (i.e. he has relationships at work with subordinates). He is also one of the chief photographers of these young girls. While the business is more ethical in terms of labor practices--and it is obvious that not *everyone* who works there is some sort of sleazy fodder for "the boss"--there is certainly a definite political issue with this.
On the other hand, much of the way I feel about this could be some lurking puritanical fantasy about the place for sex in society. It is interesting to consider the way Charney frames it in the article: "I think sex motivates everything [...] It motivates my work, too. You don't want something that's sexually driven, like panties, but then have them made in a horrible sweatshop. Like, I know my workers have a good time. They drink beer, they have relationships, they have girlfriends and boyfriends. [. . . .] It's fun to make money and pay people well."
First of, Charney is certainly not the only clothes manufacturer using sex to sell his wares, the only difference is that he is pointing to the fact that the places where these products are made--these products like the new Gap sundresses with those wildly sexual ads on TV--are made in very unsexy working conditions. Though there is certainly much to be unpacked in the way that sex is so wrapped up with consumerism, it is certainly an important appropriation (even if it is ultimately motivated by market concerns.) On the other hand, sex and consumption are certainly not all that foreign to one another and, according to Weber anyway, they would have been wrapped up with the protestant ethic in the early days of the most successful cultures of capitalism. That they have both become rampant (and interrelated) shouldn't come as a surprise, but it should make us ask how that pattern arose.
Second, the sort of appropriation that he is making--along with the various muses who work for him--seems to be picking up steam. Jane itself this month features a photo of Drew Barrymore with a t-shirt that says "politics is like sex: protect yourself...vote." Not sure how the metaphor (or is that a similie?) works, but this shirt is the subject of another article in the issue. Not very familair with the magazine itself, but it has its own thing going on which I don't really understand. In addition, sites such as http://www.beaverpower.com/ seem to be trying to tap into something like this. Their site features photos of young women wearing their t-shirts and proclaiming BEAVER POWER IS MAKING ENVIRONMENTALISM FUN AND SEXY! The site also features a quote by media and social critic Sut Jhally: "The imperative task for those who want to stress a different set of values is to make the struggle for social change fun and sexy."
To me this is a good idea--and one that is certainly not limited to the politics on the left. Last year when the Lysistrata movement was advocating an end to the war, a popular (in social location not in its mass appeal) right wing group of bloggers started a "f*ck for freedom" movement that was using the same appropriation of sex to sell the war on Iraq. Though I can't seem to find the original poster who created the graphics and started some of the movement, this particular blogger--who even got a couple of bones thrown by Sully at the time--was instrumental in spreading the word
http://www.asparagirl.com/blog/2003_03_02_archives.html
Likewise, aspiragirl launched another obscure artist into the public eye who used a similar sexualized image--this time also including a certain amount of matriachal imagery--to promote a sexy sort of violence that helped create a place for women who didn't identify with the "code pink" stance on the war--a movement which was certainly a bit old fashioned in its gender politics and was a bit overzealous in saying that all women have that peace and love stance. It, in fact, practically asked for this opposing movement.
So, to return to charney, it seems that, despite its blatent appeal to the market--and the fact that it seems the entire company runs in part on his charisma and thus would be hard to duplicate or expand too very far--american apparel is an important alternative to the much more exploitative practices of just about every other clothing manufacturer in the country. I would be interested hearing what a more feminist-minded person might say about this (which is not to say that I don't think about feminism, but that I don't think about it nearly enough to know what current trends of thought are--likewise with race studies, which would also have much to say about this particular case since most of his workforce is latino and many of the women (who also have key roles in running the company--even if they are also models for the ads) are non-white to one degree or another.) Finally, it will be interesting, now that the company is picking up steam, to see how they handle success and how they age: for instance, right now, many of these young women in charge of the company are models as well. As they get older and become both more embedded in the corporate structure and perhaps, less able to represent that young, carefree sexiness of their late 20s, will they simply hire more models giving them little stake in the company? I suppose it is something they will have to decide when they get there.
Monday, June 14, 2004
reading Lukacs "history and class consciousness"
One of the points he makes often in the 1967 preface is the problem that he had early on of having two contradictory strains of thought which he believed and of how to reconcile these--particularly with regard to the division between theory and praxis, that is, he believed something as a theorist, but in his praxis, he could see gaping holes or clear paradoxes that existed. While I sympathize with this--and have a first hand experience with it working in the SOC--I also find myself feeling this way about his theory itself.
Much of what he says about the totality and the method of marxist knowledge production is familiar to me and the way he elucidates it is striking in its clarity and logic. However, underlying all of this is a deep belief that he has in the coming revolution--no doubt inspired by the events of 1917 which were fresh on his mind in the early 20s when he wrote this. Much of what he says here sounds a bit ridiculous in its teleology. I will try to find a good example, but for now let me just present my own paradoxical position: I find the description he gives of a method important. it seems to be a clear predecessor to the position of cultural studies and I can see ways in which it also foretells althusser and the regulationist economists. On the other hand, it seems to be informed or underpinned by this firm belief in the coming upheaval and seems to largely overlook the ideological power of capitalism as a sort of elysian field that draws people to it even as it exploits and alienates them. The promise of capital has been far more powerful a force on people's consciousnesses than history--or any particular understanding of history--has been thus far. Perhaps he is saying more than this, but at this stage I feel like there is this contradiction I am trying to resolve: if this method is based on the assunption that the knowledge produced by the "ruthless criticism of everything existing" qua the totality is both linked to an a causal force in a form of social revolution that seems doomed to fail because it can't form a bulwark against a capitalist world without becoming ruthlessly capitalist itself. In other words, if this theory is rooted in this practice, can I consider one viable even as I think the other somewhat laughable in the form he presents it? This will be the question I seek to answer as I move onward in this text.
One of the points he makes often in the 1967 preface is the problem that he had early on of having two contradictory strains of thought which he believed and of how to reconcile these--particularly with regard to the division between theory and praxis, that is, he believed something as a theorist, but in his praxis, he could see gaping holes or clear paradoxes that existed. While I sympathize with this--and have a first hand experience with it working in the SOC--I also find myself feeling this way about his theory itself.
Much of what he says about the totality and the method of marxist knowledge production is familiar to me and the way he elucidates it is striking in its clarity and logic. However, underlying all of this is a deep belief that he has in the coming revolution--no doubt inspired by the events of 1917 which were fresh on his mind in the early 20s when he wrote this. Much of what he says here sounds a bit ridiculous in its teleology. I will try to find a good example, but for now let me just present my own paradoxical position: I find the description he gives of a method important. it seems to be a clear predecessor to the position of cultural studies and I can see ways in which it also foretells althusser and the regulationist economists. On the other hand, it seems to be informed or underpinned by this firm belief in the coming upheaval and seems to largely overlook the ideological power of capitalism as a sort of elysian field that draws people to it even as it exploits and alienates them. The promise of capital has been far more powerful a force on people's consciousnesses than history--or any particular understanding of history--has been thus far. Perhaps he is saying more than this, but at this stage I feel like there is this contradiction I am trying to resolve: if this method is based on the assunption that the knowledge produced by the "ruthless criticism of everything existing" qua the totality is both linked to an a causal force in a form of social revolution that seems doomed to fail because it can't form a bulwark against a capitalist world without becoming ruthlessly capitalist itself. In other words, if this theory is rooted in this practice, can I consider one viable even as I think the other somewhat laughable in the form he presents it? This will be the question I seek to answer as I move onward in this text.
Friday, June 11, 2004
ABC news is using coverage commentary to assure americans that the rest of the world is feeling our patriotism with us because they are seeing our ceremony. There are some really money quotes here that are exceptional in their nationalism: that people around the world are watching our state funeral and experiencing our grief with us (qua 9/11) and therefore improving our tarnished image abroad is stunning in its ideological coherence. It is an absurd line of reasoning, but one that they parrot willingly--along with Terry Moran who claims that the affinity people have for the US in eastern europe is the result of reagan's policy. Within just a few minutes, all of the talking heads said just this, over and over. It may have a certain reasonableness in the context, but that doesn't make it any more laughable--especially because they seem to believe it. It is a strange way to reassure people to claim the continued love of America around the world is inspired by someone as controversial as Reagan. On the other hand, he was far less blunt an instrument than the current president. It is odd to think of reagan as nuanced, but I guess everything is relative.
Ambivalence in Former 'Evil Empire' (washingtonpost.com): "But Russia under President Vladimir Putin is hardly the free society that Reagan once envisioned. Instead, it is a country deeply ambivalent about democracy, where many "
Clearly a story that will get lost in all the hubbub. certainly there is more to the collapse of the USSR than the narrative of reagan's life can illuminate. It's kind of absurd to wrap up the disintegration of a country and a culture, a complete transformation of the world as something one guy did. It shows the fetishistic desire of people to have a clearly understandable, manichean vision of history. this is even more clearly illustrated by the fact that people seem to have no idea what is going on in Russia today--the only important point is that we ended it as a communist country. This certainly foretells the way we will think about Afghanistan and Iraq: it ultimately won't matter what happens in those countries after attention is shifted, but what "we" did to end the "evil" inside of them. Another interesting parallel is visible in this quote from the article:
Sergei Karaganov, a foreign policy expert, said that for most Russians, Reagan's name is indelibly associated with his denunciation of the Soviet Union as an "evil empire," and "he was not loved for it."
Karaganov added, "At that time people were insulted, they thought it was unfair to them. It was not an empire already, it was an empty shell, so people believed he was insincere, an old-time Cold Warrior. Looking from the other side of the fence, knowing the emptiness of the system and seeing the leader of a powerful country lambasting the Soviet Union as a powerful threat seemed like a bad joke."
this last quote is utterly reminescent of the empty shell of a country we attacked last year--something that was done with some obvious awareness that it would be an easy fight.
watching the funeral...
bush's speech a ridiculous charicature of the story, myth about reagan. Yet it is obvious that he really believes this.
the battle hymn of the republic followed--arranged to sound like some sort of chorale.
then a speech from some minister in which he ties reagan to 9/11--or more says that reagan was already battling that force and saw clearly the threat even then. "a triumph of light," reagan was spreading the freedom qua a gift of god. In this case, Reagan is like jesus or something. Just the kind of thing the country needs to renew its nationalistic, jingoistic pride and its desire to carry on with world domination regardless of the consequences.
followed by "amazing grace"
more prayers, etc.
8 pallbearers each from a different branch of the military doing their thing to some sort of theme that is strangely reminescent of something from a jerry bruckhiemer movie
Here is something that is also interesting from Gorbechev
All of this is followed by a lot of footage with the bells in the background of the coffin going into the hearse, dignitaries trickling out of the national cathedral (such as nancy, the queen and prince of England, etc.) and a lot of really quiet, seamless footage of the cathedral. I can't figure out how they are positioned or where, but there are a lot of semi-aerial shots and many that move from a ground shot of these people leaving to a shot about ten or fifteen feet off the ground to this sort of wierd perspective shot of the cathedral towers (wish I could remember what those are called). There are also all kinds of soldiers and sailors carrying their rifles.
finally everyone if filing out of the cathedral, talking so that occasionally the mike picks up random snippets of conversation--just saw kucinich (is that possible?).
now moved to a silent shot of air force one--which is supposed to carry the coffin from DC back to CA for the interment. It's a rather strange, boring shot to move to, except that we can see the press corps and the Howitzers--both set to go off when the coffin arrives. My sense is that this is one of the only feeds allowed--the government camera or something.
Now a helicoptor arrives presumedly carrying the body which I suppose they transferred from the motorcade--something that only seems necessary if we're concerned with TV time rather than ceremonial time--it wouldn't take more than 15 minutes or so to drive to national but a helicoptor--even with the transfer time, would probably take a third of the time. This concern would probably only happen b/c of TV.
Now the helicoptor has landed and they've let the pleb out onto the tarmac to watch the transfer/create the massive crowd.
Upon second thought, this is probably not national airport but Andrews AFB--maybe making the helicoptor a bit more necessary.
honor guard is out; camera moves to follow them. low drum beat begins; band takes their positions--looks like a very big band--around the doors of the plane. Probably all musicians from Fort Meyer.
10 minutes after helicoptor landed with still no sign of the coffin. perhaps that's not where it was after all.
Now, for some reason, one of the air force one (or two?) 747s is in motion--the one that was closest to the helicoptor that landed. Now it takes off, I guess carrying the body. the cameras follow it into the overcast sky. Then focus in on the howitzers, the soldiers, the crowd, the Honor guard in front of the other plane...everything is quiet except for the sound of the plane engines...notably, it seems like all of the soldiers and musicians are men. Now they are standing almost perfectly still, at attention
more helicoptors seem to be arriving and they look more like the secret service crafts reserved for the president. But the television says that there is definitely a motorcade taking the body so I am not sure who or what took off in AF1 earlier.
TV also having an extensive conversation about Reagan...mostly about his "faith" his religion, etc.
Clearly a story that will get lost in all the hubbub. certainly there is more to the collapse of the USSR than the narrative of reagan's life can illuminate. It's kind of absurd to wrap up the disintegration of a country and a culture, a complete transformation of the world as something one guy did. It shows the fetishistic desire of people to have a clearly understandable, manichean vision of history. this is even more clearly illustrated by the fact that people seem to have no idea what is going on in Russia today--the only important point is that we ended it as a communist country. This certainly foretells the way we will think about Afghanistan and Iraq: it ultimately won't matter what happens in those countries after attention is shifted, but what "we" did to end the "evil" inside of them. Another interesting parallel is visible in this quote from the article:
Sergei Karaganov, a foreign policy expert, said that for most Russians, Reagan's name is indelibly associated with his denunciation of the Soviet Union as an "evil empire," and "he was not loved for it."
Karaganov added, "At that time people were insulted, they thought it was unfair to them. It was not an empire already, it was an empty shell, so people believed he was insincere, an old-time Cold Warrior. Looking from the other side of the fence, knowing the emptiness of the system and seeing the leader of a powerful country lambasting the Soviet Union as a powerful threat seemed like a bad joke."
this last quote is utterly reminescent of the empty shell of a country we attacked last year--something that was done with some obvious awareness that it would be an easy fight.
watching the funeral...
bush's speech a ridiculous charicature of the story, myth about reagan. Yet it is obvious that he really believes this.
the battle hymn of the republic followed--arranged to sound like some sort of chorale.
then a speech from some minister in which he ties reagan to 9/11--or more says that reagan was already battling that force and saw clearly the threat even then. "a triumph of light," reagan was spreading the freedom qua a gift of god. In this case, Reagan is like jesus or something. Just the kind of thing the country needs to renew its nationalistic, jingoistic pride and its desire to carry on with world domination regardless of the consequences.
followed by "amazing grace"
more prayers, etc.
8 pallbearers each from a different branch of the military doing their thing to some sort of theme that is strangely reminescent of something from a jerry bruckhiemer movie
Here is something that is also interesting from Gorbechev
All of this is followed by a lot of footage with the bells in the background of the coffin going into the hearse, dignitaries trickling out of the national cathedral (such as nancy, the queen and prince of England, etc.) and a lot of really quiet, seamless footage of the cathedral. I can't figure out how they are positioned or where, but there are a lot of semi-aerial shots and many that move from a ground shot of these people leaving to a shot about ten or fifteen feet off the ground to this sort of wierd perspective shot of the cathedral towers (wish I could remember what those are called). There are also all kinds of soldiers and sailors carrying their rifles.
finally everyone if filing out of the cathedral, talking so that occasionally the mike picks up random snippets of conversation--just saw kucinich (is that possible?).
now moved to a silent shot of air force one--which is supposed to carry the coffin from DC back to CA for the interment. It's a rather strange, boring shot to move to, except that we can see the press corps and the Howitzers--both set to go off when the coffin arrives. My sense is that this is one of the only feeds allowed--the government camera or something.
Now a helicoptor arrives presumedly carrying the body which I suppose they transferred from the motorcade--something that only seems necessary if we're concerned with TV time rather than ceremonial time--it wouldn't take more than 15 minutes or so to drive to national but a helicoptor--even with the transfer time, would probably take a third of the time. This concern would probably only happen b/c of TV.
Now the helicoptor has landed and they've let the pleb out onto the tarmac to watch the transfer/create the massive crowd.
Upon second thought, this is probably not national airport but Andrews AFB--maybe making the helicoptor a bit more necessary.
honor guard is out; camera moves to follow them. low drum beat begins; band takes their positions--looks like a very big band--around the doors of the plane. Probably all musicians from Fort Meyer.
10 minutes after helicoptor landed with still no sign of the coffin. perhaps that's not where it was after all.
Now, for some reason, one of the air force one (or two?) 747s is in motion--the one that was closest to the helicoptor that landed. Now it takes off, I guess carrying the body. the cameras follow it into the overcast sky. Then focus in on the howitzers, the soldiers, the crowd, the Honor guard in front of the other plane...everything is quiet except for the sound of the plane engines...notably, it seems like all of the soldiers and musicians are men. Now they are standing almost perfectly still, at attention
more helicoptors seem to be arriving and they look more like the secret service crafts reserved for the president. But the television says that there is definitely a motorcade taking the body so I am not sure who or what took off in AF1 earlier.
TV also having an extensive conversation about Reagan...mostly about his "faith" his religion, etc.
Thursday, June 10, 2004
Wednesday, June 09, 2004
Tuesday, June 08, 2004
Friday, June 04, 2004
Comparative Urban Studies Project @ the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
An interesting book (it sounds like) by two world bank folks that presented at the program Karen is working at on Urban Development. The writers are using much of the terminology of cultural studies and sociology--especially of Bourdieu (though it could also be coined somewhere else)-- to talk about some of the problems of international development. Though I am not sure what the true thrust of the work is, this is a much more practical application of these ideas than I usually see. I appreciate this use of the language and ideas and I think it shows an inportant trajectory to follow--especially if it retains a critical edge and doesn't become instrumentalized (though the latter is all but inevitable.)
An interesting book (it sounds like) by two world bank folks that presented at the program Karen is working at on Urban Development. The writers are using much of the terminology of cultural studies and sociology--especially of Bourdieu (though it could also be coined somewhere else)-- to talk about some of the problems of international development. Though I am not sure what the true thrust of the work is, this is a much more practical application of these ideas than I usually see. I appreciate this use of the language and ideas and I think it shows an inportant trajectory to follow--especially if it retains a critical edge and doesn't become instrumentalized (though the latter is all but inevitable.)
After a nigth out with Pablo-always a good time--talking about global finance, it occurs to me that another logical project that would have just as much of a connection between the two fields (maybe even more so) would be to talk about the debit card in the US and the way that it and the credit card have been framed in the terms of the millennial discourse of globalization ("it's everywhere you want to be...") they aren't necessarily unique in their use of this marketing, but the global reach of finance capital and the habitus created by these two instruments (both embodied in the ubiquitous "card") which helps to create both a dematerialized notion of money, reifying fictitous capital, and to instill a natural feeling to racking up tremendous debt. Viewing the change over time in advertisements for credit cards vs. the global finance regimes being implanted would be a fairly concrete project. It would also eliminate the need to discuss determination in any causal sense for both would be products of the same producers. There could be a chapter on the way that people use cards and it would be very interesting to see the generational differences between people who opened bank accounts for the first time in the 90s (and hence see debit cards and ATM cards as natural and normal) and those who were mostly writing checks for thirty or more years before that. A very good other option--which would have a much more doable research agenda within the time allowed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)