[FRA:] Marcuse question

[matthew piscioneri]

Ken,

>You can't call
>this conformism though, conformism was the anxiety of a previous age, it
>isn't as useful a concept now... a better term might be conspicuous
>consumption or competitive consumption. We buy our identities.

Yes - competitive consumption of our identities (with as much emphasis on 
the competition!) thereby maintaining social fragmentation -- Gucci v. YSL; 
Ford v. Chrysler; Man U. v. Chelsea -- almost like one religious sect v. 
another. It's almost enough to kill for - talk about *brand* wars...

I'm wondering how much creedence you and others give to the socio-historical 
narrative re the construction of *our* subjectivities...in other words the 
story goes that pre-advanced modernism social positions were largely fixed 
(feudalism/industrial class society) and a unique subjectivity was not an 
issue as it is now partly because there was no expectation and our social 
roles were largely pre-determined anyway.

With the pseudo -democratization of western lifeworlds and the gradual 
institution of the *free* (liberal/individualist) subjective paradigm social 
actors have had to obtain their *identities* from somewhere. To wit..you buy 
them in the High St or shopping mall.

I find most of the narrative convincing and tend towards agreement with the 
presumed absence of *innate* individuality in most social actors - they 
can't reach inside as it were because it's empty. So Kant's "dare to know" 
is as much a fairy tale now as it was 200 years ago. The vast majority of 
people require the imposition of a normative social template and since time 
immemorial culture has been the device to model the model, as it were. You 
only have to read Plato's Socratic dialogues to recognize this, Hume's 
Treatise on Human Nature or even Gulliver's Travels. Suggests there is a 
human nature after all.

So that's why there's little call to lose any sleep about the mores of 
contemporary society (consumerism, packaged identities); IMO pretty much 
always has been and always will be. Part of the way the material that 
constitutes the human organism organizes itself and which is why I think 
Durkheim will always remain worthy of a read.

cheers,

mattP