The Films of Hayao Miyazaki: Lupin the Third: The Castle of Cagliostro

                The first film in my analysis of the films of Hayo Miyazaki is the excellent adventure classic Lupin the Third: The Castle of Cagliostro. This marks the first feature film directorial debut for Miyazaki where, like Christopher Nolan on the film Insomnia, he was more of a director for hire for a film that was already slated for production. However, unlike Nolan, Miyazaki was able to be both writer, chief animator and storyboard artist which allowed him greater creative control than Nolan had. Thus, this film, as with a lot of directors that reach such acclaim as Miyazaki, is a prototype for future work; and therefore has a lot of the concepts, elements and ideas that will be fleshed out in future films. With Miyazaki, this film is a resounding trumpet that leads to the development of not only his own style, but of his own studio; the famed Studio Ghibli.

PLOT

Master thief Arsene Lupin III and his right hand man Diasuke Jigen rob a bank in Monaco. As they are celebrating their victory Lupin realizes that the money they stole are legendary forgeries called “goat bills”. Once they dump the fake currency, they travel to the supposed birthplace of the counterfeit cash, the grand duchy of Cagliostro; a place Lupin had attempted to rob before (10 years prior) but was thwarted by the palace guards and heavy security.

Once in the region, Lupin and Jigen interrupt an escape attempt/kidnapping of Lady Clarisse. After which Lupin enlists the help of his second partner Goemon Ishikawa, Super spy Fujiko Mine and Inspector Koichi Zenigata, (the INTERPOL agent that is always trying to catch Lupin) in order to rescue Clarisse and find out the secrets of the Cagliostro Castle.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

The film Castle of Cagliostro is based on the characters in the “Lupin the Third” Manga created by Monkey Punch in 1967.  In 1971 one of Miyazaki’s first animation jobs was to direct episodes for the Lupin the third tv series. When Miyazaki moved from A-Pro studios to TMS entertainment in 1979, he was given the chance to write, storyboard and direct what was at the time only the second “Lupin” film (The first being “The Mystery of Mamo”). It is under Miyazaki’s direction that this film not only becomes one of the best Lupin films, it also marks as a drastic change from the characters both in the manga as well as the previous and any subsequent Lupin films. In this way Miyazaki shows his talent for character and strong storytelling that eventually becomes a major influence for some of the important animators over the next thirty years.

Characters and their ‘Cagliostro’s iterations (Spoilers ahead)

            The depiction of the Lupin the third characters in Castle of Cagliostro is a radical departure than how they have been represented before or since in various media properties. In many of these other (lesser) depictions, the characters are often selfish, cynical, and morally ambiguous to such a degree that to watch them with any kind of sociological or critical eye is difficult, leaving the critic angry and/or having to make excuses for character behavior by delegitimizing the property as nothing more than fiction. Therefore, there is something to be gleaned from a brief comparison between how the main characters are usually depicted and Miyazaki choses to depict them in his film.

            Arsene Lupin  III

           

            It is through Lupin himself that Miyazaki provides the most divergent take. In the manga and other films (not directed by Miyazaki) Lupin is an ego-centric, lecherous morally bankrupt violent killer.[1] He is always thinking about his next score, women, or living up to the memory of his thief ancestor. He often puts his “friends” in compromising situations that make them have to defend themselves. This is especially true with his relationship with Fujiko Mine which is often depicted as violent often suggestive of rape and sexual harassment.

            The Cagliostro Lupin, while portrayed as one that flirts and is described as a “ladies man” at one point. The focus of the story is Lupin helping Clarisse because he owes her for saving his life, and not because he wants to sleep with her. In fact, the film goes out of its way at several points to show just how uninterested he is in Clarisse. In the films initial chase sequence Lupin does not go after Clarisse until he realizes that she is being chased by armed men. Secondly, after the film’s climatic sequence, as Lupin and Clarisse are talking Clarisse is willing to leave with Lupin and become a thief. He gently refuses and leaves with his compatriots.

 It is also interesting to note that all of the behavior that is characteristic of Lupin in other iterations is embodied in Cagliostro’s villain. At several points in the film, The Count is called lecherous, devious, and untrustworthy and is shown on several occasions to be violent, devoid of humanity, and in one sequence, blood thirsty. Thus, when he dies a gruesome death (crushed by large clock hands) it serves as a strong critique of those character traits.

By contrast, this makes the Cagliostro version of Lupin the antithesis of how he exists in other forms. Miyazaki’s Lupin is the thief with a heart of gold, he is noble and honest with a clear moral center. By this simple shift Miyazaki is not only infusing the character with a sensibility that Miyazaki would be more comfortable writing, but also putting his definitive stamp on the character, whose ideals and values show up in other characters in a lot of his later work.

Jigen and Goemon

            Two of the characters that get the least to do in Miyazaki’s Cagliostro are the characters of Daisuke Jigen and Goemon Ishikawa. While these characters have extensive backstories in the manga and in the subsequent films, even to the point where there are several films that focus on one or both of these characters. These rich backstories are not represented in Cagliostro, either because the said backstories had yet to be written at the time of the films production, or those details did not fit with the story that Miyazaki wanted to tell. Instead, Miyazaki decides to use them sparingly; each given a sequence or two of action while at other times literally being sidelined throughout several sequences. The greater victim of this is Goemon, of which little is known of in the film. All Miyazaki does is infuse him with the honor and nobility that is found in typical Samurai stereotypes.

Miyazaki does offer a little bit more dimension to Jigen from the beginning of the film through the films first two action sequences. In this the Cagliostro Jigen seems to be more loyal, less violent and certainly more friendly than his Manga counterpart These sequences play on the “best friend” relationship Jigen and Lupin seem to have[2] and show Jigen as an easy going, humorous fellow do-gooder thief. In this version, gone is the tragic backstory, the deep nihilism and bitterness that saturates a lot of the other stories (especially the ones that focus on Jigen). Much like with Lupin, these characteristics did not fit with Miyazaki’s sensibilities nor with the tone he wanted Cagliostro to have; therefore these traits were properly exorcised for the film.

Fujiko Mine

            Aside from Lupin, the character of Fujiko Mine is the most changed from her portrayal in the Manga and in the other non Miyazaki Lupin films. Originally, she was created to be a series of 2 dimensional female characters that were the “girl” to Lupin’s “Bond”. But Monkey Punch stated that rather than create different female characters all of the time, he just amalgamated all his ideas into one character. Because of her paper-thin origins, Fujiko, in almost every iteration is hyper sexualized (even appearing nude or near nude in several films) and the object of Lupin’s constant lust. She is often “damseled” and seen as of secondary importance. Miyazaki’s Fujiko is nothing of the sort, in fact that Fujiko can be seen as the proto-feminist template that Miyazaki will become known for in future films[3]

            In Castle of Cagliostro, we are introduced to Fujiko as a simple hand maiden, but quickly find out that she was sent to the region of Cagliostro to spy on the Count (for whom we are not quite sure). Throughout the course of the film we find out that Fujiko is not only adept at espionage, and a master of disguise but she is proficient in martial arts and military weapons and tactics.  When Fujiko decides to help with Clarisse’s escape Fujiko explains her history with Lupin to Clarisse. When Clarisse surmises that Lupin left her (and thereby breaking her heart). Fujiko corrects her with a smile stating how she left Lupin. In this one simple piece of dialogue it shows Fujiko as a “self-possessed women at the top of her field”[4] In this story, she is not there for Lupin, she does not follow Lupin, their paths just are intersecting at this particular point[5] and they diverge just as quickly at the end (when again she leaves causing Lupin to pursue her).  

 Over the years, (after the cultural impact of Cagliostro) Fujiko has been given some amount of agency (but it is usually only agency gained though sex) and some depictions showing her to be just as ruthless and violent as Lupin.  It is difficult to say how much of this agency that Fujiko eventual achieves was the original intention of Monkey Punch, or is the result of the acceptance and canonization of the Cagliostro story. Either way, Miyazaki’s Fujiko, with minimal screen time, is the most well rounded non sexualized depiction we have seen so far.   

Miyazaki before Ghibli

            An important aspect of trying to understand the historical context of this film and judging it accordingly is to understand that this is the first film of a (clearly) talented director before he became synonymous with the term Animation. It is in tis film were he is given creative control of the films production but was still hamstrung by the limitations of the Lupin IP. However, this along with his next feature, ignite the germ that would lead to the creation of one of the greatest animation studios in the world.

INFLUENCES    

Over the years, Miyazaki’s Lupin the Third: The Castle of Cagliostro is regarded as not only the aforementioned best of the Lupin films, it was once regarded by Steven Speilberg as one of the greatest adventure movies of all time[6] and may have been a inspiration for Indiana Jones. This is film is so well regarded that many homages to the film can be seen in other animated films and tv shows. The two most egregious examples of this are The Great Mouse Detective and the Clock King episode of Batman the Animated Series

 The Great Mouse Detective 

The Clock King:Batman:TAS

Partners with Disney

   Miyazaki has influenced, many animators and companies but no company more so than Disney. Many of the key animators at Disney through the late 1990’s through the 2000s have been influenced by Miyazaki’s work. However, it was the love of Miyazaki’s work ( and Cagliostro in particular ) that caused animator, executive and sexual harasser John Lasseter to convince the Disney company to be the international distributor of Ghibli films through the 2000’s to early 2011 when they sold it to GKIDS   

It is just unfortunate to note that people in the United States would not know of Miyazaki, or this film without Disney given its number of ethical and human rights violations the company suffers from. This stings especially when you consider the overall themes of Miyazaki’s work being in direct opposition to the corporate practices of a company that he influenced.   

CONCLUSION

This is my favorite Miyazaki film. I have been a champion for it since I saw it in early 2000. Unfortunately, regardless of its brilliance, it is often not included in boxed sets of Miyazaki’s work, nor is it considered one of the Studio Ghibli films. In fact, the blu-ray of this film is difficult to find. Yet, it is worth your time and analysis as this review, and others protest. 

---

[1] So much so that the content of the manga and some of the films had to be greatly censored

[2] Although not once does Jigen call Lupin “boss” an inflection and term of endearment that used in both the manga and the later films. While some would see this as doing a disservice to the character, I would consider this a extreme form of fan Nitpicking and what can lead to toxic fan culture

[3] Especially in Nausicca, his first film under Studio Ghibli

[4] To Quote the character of Ron Swanson from the television show  Parks and Recreation

[5] Earlier in the film Lupin states that he hasn’t seen Fujiko in over a year.

[6] Quote taken from the 2000 DVD release of Castle of Cagliostro

A Closing Door of Choices: The Sociological Dangers of The Disney/Fox Deal

INTRODUCTION

One of the blessings/curses of Sociology is that once you adopt the Sociological Perspective, you see the strange in the familiar and “the familiar as strange” as C. Wright Mills put it. In the simplest terms, this means that as one studies society they start to question everyday habits behaviors and norms that most people, if they have not adopted the above perspective will take for granted. This normalization of behaviors leads to a lack of critical thinking and analysis. Since sociologist are unique among scientists (in that they live in the very thing that they study) we too are prone to this normalization (and the ignorance and apathy that follows). The result is what can be deemed “sociological blind spots” in which our critical, analytical and keen sociological intellect chooses not to penetrate. While these “blind spots” are different for each sociologist, each one of us has them[1]. Usually, this is something that the sociologist has a personal investment in (something that is informative to their personality, through childhood development) which the Sociologist has to actively quiet their sociological mind in order to enjoy.[2] Most of the time, Sociologist are actively successful creating any number of leaps in logic or rationalizations that minimize the inevitable feelings of hypocrisy[3]. However, occasionally something happens within society that is so impactful that its reverberation lifts the self-imposed veil and the sociologist has to be reflexive about their behavior without qualification.  For me, comic books, superheroes and popular culture have been my blind spot; but, the recent Disney/Fox Merger  has lifted the veil causing a revaluation of the content and media I consume. What follows is a critical deconstruction of the aforementioned merger and court ruling concluding with suggestions for direct action and steps toward a solution.

THEORETICAL ANALYSIS

Aside from the obvious general sociological perspective[4] that I shall employ in this social analysis. There are several other sociological concepts that I will elucidate in order to have a deeper understanding of these events. Specifically, to scrutinize the Disney/Fox merger I will be using the Marxian ideas of Commodification, commodity fetishism, Zizek’s ideas of what he calls cultural capitalism, which not to be confused with Pierre Bourdieu, I will refer to as Consumeristic philanthropy, Naomi Kline’s ideas of branding, Zygmundt Bauman’s ideas of liquid modernity and liquid consumption, Weber’s Ideas of Rationalization, “The Iron Cage” and Ritzer’s Grobalization.

            Capitalism

            One of reasons why the Disney/Fox merger is a problem, is rooted in the overall systemic problem of Capitalism. According to Marx (and many of his denizens) Capitalism, if left unrestricted, would “naturally” lead to class inequality; specifically the exploitation of the labor force and of consumers.  The crux of this for Marx was in how capitalism as an economic system treats value. Marx stated that unlike a barter system, or other system of trade for goods, services and commodities, Capitalism does not focus on what Marx calls Use value[5] in which the value of the commodity is based on its usefulness to the longevity and support of the workers. Instead, capitalism is more interested in Exchange Value [6] in which the value of a commodity is in its ability to get something else (its ability to be exchanged). Marx (1994) explains

“As use values, commodities differ in above all quality, while exchange values, can only differ in quantity and therefore do not contain an atom of use value…All [use value’s] sensuous characteristics are extinguished…With the disappearance of the useful characters of the products of labor, the useful character of the of the kinds of labor embodied in them also disappears.” (p 222)

Essentially, Marx says that with the focus on exchange value, labor that produces a commodity becomes an abstraction, and therefore unimportant.[7]

David Harvey (2010) in his analysis of the “crisis of capitalism”, speaks eloquently about the dangers of unrestricted Capitalism. First, he quotes Marx in The Grundrisse that “ Capital cannot abide a limit. It turns limits into barriers that it needs to either circumvent or trancend… which has a consequence of enriching financers” usually at the expense of the workers.[8]

Additionally, since Capitalism is motivated by profit, and as indicated above, it desires to be limitless, the most secure way to increase profit is by lowering the cost of labor and increasing the price of the product; leading to the aforementioned exploitation of the worker and the consumer. The worker is not paid fairly for the labor that they use (and the products they help produce), and the consumers pay a price that is (usually) hundreds of times higher than the product’s cost of production. Yet, since this price is still considered cheap, by consumers those that do not see past their own biography think that this is beneficial.  Therefore, this desire for profits lead to the very fiscally conservative idea of “Free market Capitalism.”^[9]. This ideology is what lead President Regan (and is Neo-Liberal doctrine) to relax anti-trust laws allowing corporate mergers to propagate; paving the way for a number of corporate mergers (many by Disney over the last 30 years) the most recent deal with Fox being so large as to be named a “mega-merger.”

The use of language to rationalize this behavior is fascinating. If one looks at the culture of business, they will not find words of anti-trust, monopolies or exploitation. According to Naomi Klein (2000, 2017) you will hear words like “Synergy” “identity branding”, “cross market advertising” and “mass market appeal” in hopes to normalize the bureaucratic corporatization of life itself.

Commodification

Because Capitalism cannot abide a limit, Marx believed that unrestricted it would cover the planet, making even our intangible ideals and emotions into tangible products.  As a Marxian term, Commodification is the process by which everything in human life, including human life is able to be bought, sold, traded or exchanged. In turn, we commodify love through gifts, flowers, and diamonds (even having its own day on reserve)[10]. We commodify fear with various security measures and methods of self-protection. We commodify happiness through many products of self-satisfaction (namely food and other forms of entertainment). To that end, Marx was correct that we have commodified everything down to an egocentric point; All of these products say something about ourselves, our emotions, identities and personalities.

A second Marxian term, Commodity Fetishism, is the way in which individuals start to only understand themselves through the products that they buy; so that who they are is represented in the products that they own.[11] This is taken to a more extreme level if we look at Zizek’s ideas of Cultural Capitalism [12] that I refer to as consumeristic Philanthropy- This is a form of commodity fetishism. The simple idea is that when a person buying a product, it makes a person feel connected to a social issue or a particular community. A perfect example of this is the pink ribbon for breast cancer awareness. Sales dramatically increase for any product that touts that ribbon due to people’s ideological support for breast cancer research. The purchase of the product makes the consumer feel more connected to social issues, that they are part of something more than just themselves; more than just a consumerist, as Zizek says.  However, this form of consumerism is shown to negatively impact social participation. Concisely, by purchasing products that represent a person’s ideology, they are less likely to engage in meaningful actions toward those ideological goals. By this action it places individuals in in a state of false conscious as to their participation in society; that they feel like they are doing more than they are.  This is epitomized by online activism, often decried as “slacktivism”[13] by its detractors which requires fall less action than traditional grassroots activism. With this form of activism, Individual’s personal investment is low, while their social and psychological benefits are so high that any aforementioned marketing around such an idea is done in the spirit of capitalism with the desired result of profit; commodifying our compassion and a desire for justice.[14]

The advertising of products definitely leans into this idea of social connections in the way that markets to a person’s identity, and how the product can say something about a person chosen lifestyle (and help them express a particular point of view). Endless consumption is created by marketing to what a product can mean, and not what a product can do. This process, motivated by profit leads to various forms of branding.

Branding

           

            Branding (as we think of it today) began fairly recently in our economic history, beginning around the same time as our focus of mass production (Klein, 2000).  In this space, the product was less the focus of the marketing than the company. The structure of the branding was first organized around company logos (Think Golden Arches, Swooshes, a Horse etc.) (Klein 2000). This branding was so effective that the company, not the product, stood for quality or inferiority depending on the brand’s success.[15] Therefore the way people purchased products began to change. People began to trust brands more so than individual products. The more people trust a particular brand, the more likely they are to purchase said brand across a variety of products. This leads to a social phenomenon known as Brand Loyalty[16] which is the overall goal for companies and their advertisers. There is a greater potential for profit if you already have a built in consumer base, even if that comes with certain strings attached.[17]

             The United States is a branded society. For a lifetime or two, advertisers have not just been selling products, they have been selling ideas, values and a way of life (Kilbourne 1999). In a global economy the greatest export we (The US) have is our culture, one that is full of corporate logos, catch phrases, celebrity endorsements, and jingles[18]. Yet, in the era of social media, we have gone a step further and have begun to brand ourselves and our identities. We have adopted the word “brand” into our lexicon[19] This slowly began with social and cultural identities and experiences being seen as exclusive (experiences and identities based upon race, gender disability, social class and sexuality that help to construct different realities), which was then exacerbated by the advent and participation in online social media where individuals are encouraged, and often required to sell their ideas, through the commodification of their very identity for various amounts of capital usually in the form of online media attention: likes, shares, reposts, reblogs etc. (Bourdieu 1986). This is what Naomi Klein (2017) calls “lifestyle Brands” One of the best examples is the life and Presidency of Donald Trump; who branded his identity to be synonymous with wealth and success (regardless of the actual truth of that image) all the way to the White House.[20]

            Consumerism

Branded societies, identities and cultures can only exist because of Consumerism. According to Bauman (2007) in a consumptive economy (as opposed to a productive economy after the industrial revolution) we lack ambition because nothing is embraced by individuals in a Consumer economy for very long.  There is no ultimate desire, no point of full satisfaction. What this means, is that individuals in a consumer society are in a state of perpetual “un-fulfillment”. This creates a consumer who is: impatient, impetuous, restive and excitable; one that loses interest/ attention quickly, where any momentary satisfaction does not require learning or skill to obtain, and is often roped into consuming by the sensations and experiences certain products promise. Because of this, Bauman says that any form of product acquisition always seems hollow[21] and that people function in the world as if having no more desires, is equated to having no more prospects in the world. Thus, in a consumer economy, the ideal consumer is one in which their desires are endless, contributing to the overall commodification identified by Marx (Bauman 2007). This gets progressively worse as our society shifts from modernity into a different form of consumption.

Another chief principle of Bauman’s is the idea of liquidity[22]. This social analysis of a fluid social order he has applied to everything tangible or intangible over the course of his carrier.  The form of liquidity that it the most important for this analysis is that of “liquid consumption” this is the notion that  we have shifted to consume an increased number of experiences (the intangible) rather than just things (tangible).  This consumption of experiences has been illustrated by the use of social media and the “selfie” craze. Many people go on vacation and take “selfie” to prove to themselves and to others that they were there. As if it doesn’t become real to them until they post it on Instagram or other forms of social media. Today, this process of taking a picture of oneself does not produce anything tangible. Both the product, and the experience, produces “nothing” therefore is more transient. Thus it is through these lenses of Capitalism, commodification, branding and consumerism that the Disney/Fox deal must be analyzed; to which I now turn my attention.

SOCIAL ANALYSIS

Looking at Disney’s vast amounts of assets and Intellectual Property (prior to the Fox deal) one would already come to the conclusion that Disney is a corporate Juggernaut. Yet, if the actual deal is allowed to go through Disney is set to become a behemoth. What is sociologically “interesting”[23] is the reaction that is circulating throughout popular culture and social media.[24] Most of the general public whom are completely enveloped in this mechanism of capitalistic consumerism that rewards the unquestioning satisfaction of their own desires, (while, at the same time not recognizing that those desires are manufactured) see this deal as a blessing; an amalgamation of previously separated content that will (at least for superhero fantasy fans) fulfill long held childhood dreams.

In a recent article, David Harvey discussed his fear of the militarization of social control, that would limit the ability of people’s right to assemble, thus minimizing social participation and effectively killing the first amendment in practice. While there is plenty of evidence for the militarization of the police as an anti-protest force around the world, and especially within the US after 9/11 (think of specific examples such as Occupy Wall Street or Ferguson)[25] the one things that Marx, and many of his acolytes overlook is what Max Weber understood which is the gentle and often imperceptible power of rationalized social norms.

Rationalization

In Economy and Society, Weber (later supported by George Ritzer), understood that the formation of a bureaucratic social structure ultimately attempts (and to a large part succeeds) in eliminating human diversity and choice by organizing human behavior in a rational way.  This rationalization of irrational (emotional) human behavior and beliefs results in what Weber calls “The Iron Cage” this is a bureaucratic trap in which people are objectified, depersonalized, disenchanted, standardized, and alienated.  The idea is that we are either physically replaced, for the efficiency of machines, or we have been socialized to follow such a ridged set of behaviors and routines (many of which we follow in such rapid succession with each other that  we are always in a routine/behavioral pattern) that we lack critical thinking and become machine like ourselves.

This becomes important when looking at the response to the Disney/Fox Merger. By using a Weberian analysis instead of a Marxist one, there is a realization that what we need to fear is not the militarization of social control, but of the use of routines and social norms. By socializing us to the synergy of monopolistic corporations, and making it more and more difficult and/or fruitless to engage our civil liberties, we won’t need to have our rights forcibly taken away, we just won’t exercise them. This is a win for the corporations because they gain social control, and increase their profits while not having any blowback by ideas that seem unpopular. This leads us to an explanation for the “tepid resistance” to the deal. We get what we believe we want, more content. But, as Weber points out, this is a state of false consciousness it is really the elimination of diversity and choice.

Grobalization of Nothing

This elimination of choice is continued by George Ritzer and Roland Robertson in their work on Globalization. In 2004, Ritzer came up with a term Grobalization- to define all of the macro level rationalized dehumanizing practices of the process of globalization. Ritzer and Robertson (separately) came to the conclusion that Grobalization- produced “Nothing”. Nothing was defined as anything that was devoid of unique and distinct content, homogenized to appeal the broadest audience possible. “Nothing” is the chief product of mass production; the foremost architect of mass production are corporations. The profit motive that drives corporations leads to the inevitable production of nothing because Nothing is safe, it does not take a social or political stance. Additionally, because of its lack of focus, more advertising dollars are put in to the selling of ‘Nothing’ because advertisers have to “Manufacture desire” for that thing in the minds of consumers (hence the pitch towards a synergy of content). Therefore, instead of “something’ people want various forms of ‘Nothing’ A product that gives the illusion of both quality and content, (the illusion that it is in fact ‘something’ when it is not) while making it easier for producers to create something for the broadest and simplistic tastes.  

For these reasons we all need to be afraid.

SOLUTIONS

            Solutions to this particular problem, are difficult to assess if you are looking from a macro level (and cynical) perspective it may already be too late. However, Let’s start with something simple. On social media get the hashtag #BreakupDisney trending.  Follow and support the Suit against the At&T/ Time Warner deal because that will set a precedent on whether or not the Disney/Fox deal will actually go through. Finally, support the fight for net neutrality because these two ideas are inexorably linked.

And Remember the warning of Dr. Ian Malcom

           

---

[1] In some respects there are necessary in order to live in the world. Otherwise individuals would have no respite from the deconstruction of the world around them that they are trained to do.

[2] It is important to note that the sociologist is often aware of this process, but the emotional investment is so strong that the behaviors continue.

[3] This hypocrisy is often used against a sociologist in arguments. There might be a separate post later about this occupational hazard that all sociologists have to endure

[4] Which allows me to unite the personal and the political as well as understand the link between biography and history

[5] Very crudely defined as the ability to keep a worker working

[6] The value of a commodity in relation to a third “equalizing variable”

[7] One way that I always pose this idea to my students is through this simple question: “By a show of hands, how many of you  when you go to the store and are thinking about purchasing a product, think about the working conditions and the wages of the person(s) who made the product?” To which virtually no hands are raised. “Now, how many of you think about the price before you purchase?” To which all hands rise. “That…” I say “is Marx’s point.”

[8] Crisis of Capitalism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0

^[9] This phrase often comes with a misreading of Adam Smith stating that the market will be regulated by an “Invisible hand”.

[10] Valentine’s day of course

[11] Part of this can be understood through an understanding of Goffman’s Presentation of self. We use commercialized products to help us maintain an elaborate presentation of self, in order to control how other people see ourselves

[12] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g

[13] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk8x3V-sUgU

[14] Essentially, our desire for social justice is commodified and sold back to us at a premium price.

[15] It is also important to note that Advertising does not sell products

[16] The process by which individual continue to purchase the same brand of products over time regardless of convenience or price

[17][17] However, while a consumer base is good, it can limit the amount of diversity that a company can put in their products; out of fear that they will lose their fan base. A recent example of this is the divisive nature of the latest Star Wars film The Last Jedi

[18][18] In a recent episode of The Social Breakdown Podcast I learned (but not surprised by) that the image of Santa Claus that we have come to know and love in our society was created by Coca-Cola….how American

[19] People even going as far to say that a particular action or opinion is “on brand”

[20] Klein (2017) goes on to suggest that Trump is running the White House on the rules of Branding, and aptly makes the point that one cannot disinvest in their company, if that company is their name (p35)

[21] Klein (2017) even calls this the “hollow brand model.”

[22] I am particularly discussing liquid modernity here which is the cultural and social condition of radical ambivalence, social change, and institutional flexibility in which weakened social bonds and high levels of individual mobility develop new patterns of identity formation based upon minimization of institutional commitments, flexibility of interpersonal responsibility

[23] By interesting I mean involving social behaviors that are bot perplexing to those who study and dangerous

[24] To be fair it is important to note that, as I write this in early January, this deal has been out of the news cycle for weeks, we have completely lost touch with this story; This is more telling of the difficulty of being an academic and analyst when the news cycle is so short. Which is a long way to say I think few people will read this.

[25] Some of you might think well “What about the Women’s march?” You have to look at the intersections of race and class to understand that the militarization of the police is usually rooted in the fear of people of color