Showing posts with label Mills. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mills. Show all posts

Saturday, December 7, 2019

The Films of Hayao Miyazaki: Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind





The Second film in my analysis of The Films of Hayao Miyazaki is the post-apocalyptic fantasy  Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind This is the film that put Miyazaki and his team on the map allowing him to develop and create his own studio. While not known at the time, but Nauscicca embodies everything that we have come to identify as quintessentially “Miyazaki”. Many of the elements, themes and struggles in the film become a standard template for Miyazaki films in the future, eventually identifying as Miyazaki’s signature. Thus, it is through the film’s plot, context (both social and historical), and various themes that make Nausicaa the first pure Miyazaki film.




THE (NEAR) BIFURCATION OF MIYAZAKI
When looking at the totality of Miyazaki’s work, much like a lot of categorizations, you can divide most of Miyazaki’s work in to one of two categories based upon their intended audience. There are Miyazaki films that are more clearly marketed for adults (dealing with heavier themes and darker subtext) and those films that are marketed to children (the films that are socialization tools that have strong and powerful messages for what it means to be an adult usually involving young children as the protagonist).


Miyazaki Films for Adults                                       Miyazaki films for Children
Castle of Cagliostro (1979)                                        Castle in the Sky (1986)
Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind (1984)                 My Neighbor Totoro (1988)
Porco Roso (1992)                                                      Kiki’s Delivery Service (1989)
Princess Mononoke (1997)                                         Ponyo (2008)
Howl’s Moving Castle (2004)                                     Spirited Away (2001)
The Wind Rises (2013)                                                How Do I Live? (2020)

However, because binaries are unequal social constructs that have been proven time and again to not fit the complex diversity of reality; it can be argued (correctly in my opinion) that many of these Miyazaki films straddle the line between being solely for adults or exclusively for children. In fact, many of his films involve children as the protagonists, but also has them confront very adult ideas of work, life, and existence. Therefore, while the methodology of this list is an easy shorthand for discerning the more dramatic of Miyazaki’s stories compared to those that are more lighthearted, all of Miyazaki’s films can be enjoyed by all.

          



     PLOT
1000 years after the collapse of industrialization and the “7 days of fire” that covered the planet, Humanity is divided into large “Kingdoms” which are interlocked in battle between themselves and the environment which is personified by the Ohm, large trilobite creatures that, in fits of rage  attack the humans. The air is toxic and the spores of the forest jeopardize the meager civilizations that have survived. The titular Nausicaa is the Princess of the Valley of the Wind, one of the human Kingdoms that is positioned in a valley closest to the sea. Its constant breeze and lush forest protect the kingdom from the toxic spores that have been known to invade and destroy a civilization. This is all put in jeopardy when waring rival kingdoms invade the Valley seeking an ancient weapon that will suppress the toxic forest and allow one kingdom total supremacy.  Nausicaa must act as a bridge between the forest and humanity, quelling tension and aggression on both sides and needing to find the most direct and efficient way to achieve long lasting peace. 



HISTORICAL CONTEXT
          
   (re)gaining trust
            Miyazaki’s previous film  The Castle ofCagliostro was not well received at the box office regardless of wining the prestigious Ofuji Noburo Animation Award[1] in part due to the way that Miyazaki “softened” the Lupin characters so that they would not seem so nihilistic or sexist. Many people chided that it was not “the real” (or to be more accurate) “their” Lupin[2]. As a result of this backlash, and poor box office performance Miyazaki’s subsequent film ideas could not get any traction at any major animation studio. He was seen as too big of a risk.  Therefore, as a proof of concept he published the two volume Manga version of Nausicaa beginning in 1979, first published in 1982. The Manga was a huge success (selling over 11 million copies) which paved the way for the film adaptation.
           
  Leaving it all on the field
The constant setbacks, detours and delays that Miyazaki and his team experienced attempting to bring Nausicaa to fruition left them feeling disillusioned. This despondence and trepidation was well warranted. Miyazaki and his team had yet to establish themselves (Takahata’s ground breaking film Grave of the Fireflies only gets made until after Nausicaa’s success) and they were worried that if Nausicaa was received as well as Castle of Cagliostro, no one else would allow them to make another film. Thus, feeling that this may be their only shot at expressing themselves they began to lace Nausicaa with all of the values, beliefs, ideals, and tropes that would become a signature of the then forthcoming Studio Ghibli and Miyazaki in particular.
          
     


    Warriors of the Wind
            While the film did very well in a majority of the international Markets in the United States, the distribution companies of Manson International and Showmen, Inc edited and recut Miyazaki’s original film into what they titled Warriors of the Wind. This recut/edit of the film not only changed the focus away from Nausicaa to more of an ensemble piece[3]; it also cut out 25 minutes of footage. This lead to a lot of the themes being lost or changed (particularly those about female empowerment and environmentalism).Including:
·         In this version the Ohm are seen and understood only as aggressive antagonists
·         The titular “warriors” use the “God warrior” to destroy the Ohm
·          All of the character development for Nausicaa (Now called Princess Zandra) was cut

Bring completely dissatisfied with the actions of the US distributors, Miyazaki mandated final cut for all of his projects once Studio Ghibli was created. This was to make sure that he could control the fate of his finished films and make sure that audiences could view his film in the way that he had intended.





SOCIAL CONTEXT
In taking a critical sociological perspective on Miyazaki’s films and specifically Nausicaä one gets the sense through both his Manga, and the film that he believes that film has a duty to say something about the world in an attempt to make it better than how he left it.  As indicated in my introduction to Miyazaki’s work he often wrestles with the feeling and self-perception that he has not done enough for the world, that his films are nothing compared to the real work that needs to be done.[4] Yet, through his films complex themes and a focus and representation of femininity and a divergent look at the “ Princess culture”, Miyazaki, through his films, has provided progressive cultural messaging that is the foundation of any progressive social policies or social justice movement. In Nausicaä specifically, because they were  unsure of its success and longevity they packed the film with a dense variety of themes, that he eventually spreads out in his later films.





Anti Capitalism/ Industrialism
In Nausicaa’s opening narration, we are known that it is a thousand years since the collapse of industrialization. The basic sociological understanding of history points to the correlation between the rise of industrialization and early capitalism. The idea that the industrial technology shifted how we live (from a pre-modern era to a modern era) that it created new social and cultural norms, ways of behavior that allowed capitalism as an economic system to grow, and thrive.

This summation of Marx and Weber’s thoughts on the subject can provide some illustration:

Marxio 



   
Is Capitalism Bad For You?





While we don’t get a full explanation as to what happened to cause the fall of industrialization or what truly happened during the “Seven days of Fire”. Though I would assume due to the collusion between Capitalism, Industry and the Military and the endless wars that we (especially the United States) fight it is conceivable and some might even say inevitable that we will eventually destroy ourselves. This is something Miyazaki understood all too well.

In Nausicaä, Miyazaki discusses ancient biological weapons that were stock piled and used against warring factions that we can assume led to the aforementioned “7 days of fire”. These weapons are clear allegories to the nuclear bomb (something Japaneseanimation has always been obsessed with).  Being born in 1941, Miyazaki found the experience of WWII and the bombs informative as a child, and then used the ancient weapons as a way that he could talk about the dangers of nuclear proliferation…which is also a product of the toxic, unregulated, late stage capitalism.    







Environmentalism
                     

   …Industrial civilizations sprawl across the face of the planet plundering the soil of its riches fouling the air, and remolding life forms at will. Cities burned, welling up as clouds of posion…Almost all of the surface of the earth was transformed into a sterile wasteland  Hayao Miyazaki Nausicaä Manga



It is through this quote in the opening cover of the first volume that lays out the beginning of Miyazaki’s thesis on environmentalism that would eventually span a number of his films.  Here Miyazaki is drawing a direct causation between industrialization and environmental destruction. According to Jorgensen et al[5] (2018) the current drivers of climate change are economic systems (capitalism as previously mentioned) and Consumption. Our consumption practices, especially for energy are dangerously unsustainable which fuels environmental depletion.
-          
       The US is 4.5% of the world’s population
-          But it makes up 21.8% of the global energy use
-          31.8% of industrial consumption
-          39.6% of residential and commercial energy purposes
-          28.6% of the world’s transportation consumption


This equates that the US alone consumes an average of 40% of Global resources.
This desire for resources has led to practices of acquiring those resources quickly and cheaply that are often damaging to the environment, practices that have a long history dating back to Industrialization: Burning coal, deforestation, strip mining, offshore drilling. Unfortunately, the US is often the model for global capitalist success. Which means that other newly industrialized countries like China, are following similar industrial practices as the United States, with greater production and reckless environmental abandon.

Mark Maslin addresses this in his book Climate Change: a Very Short Introduction when he states:


 “Climate change challenges the very economic theories that have dominated global economics for the last 35 years and that we need to build a new [economic and] political system that will allow collective action and more equal distribution of wealth, resources and opportunities.” P 172


This is because industrialization and capitalism has created value in cultural ideas skills and behaviors that result in environmental destruction.  

-          Just 4 % of big five energy producers went to renewable energy research and implementation [6]
-          Climate deniers often manufacture the threat that being eco-friendly is a threat to Capitalism. This was the same excuse that was leveed against abolitionists, The occupy movement about redistribution and any kind of substantive change
-         
      The Solution to the modern ecological problem is:  the radical reordering of our economic political systems that are antithetical to the “free market” belief system[7]
-          We need to plan economies based upon collective priorities and need rather than corporate profitability. This the way that the sustainability becomes Macro in focus
-           To accomplish this, it takes strong Government action at all levels

In the context of Miyazaki, It is fascinating to see that during the time that we gain the ability to measure our impact on the environment[8], Miyazaki also gives us this film as an environmentalist cautionary tale. Through Nausicaä, Miyazaki removes all sub text, and in the text of the film states the importance of the forest to the air quality of the kingdom; positioning Nausicaa’s kingdom as geopolitically valuable due to the wind being able to keep the poisonous spores from festering.  The later revelation that it was the forest that is trying to clean the air of pollutants and save humanity is a mic drop of a conclusion.  






Feminism/ Female Empowerment (better princess culture)
            Miyazaki has always been interested in telling stories about the empowerment and humanity of young girls and women. This has led Miyazaki and his work to be embraced by feminists. As well he should, as he has always been positioned as the antithesis to a western princess culture. Also, it is difficult in the increasing corporatization of (the princess) culture through the Disney monolith that has commodified all aspects of the childhood of multiple generations to find something that is not reinforcing tired stereotypes on the next generation or weaponizing them through nostalgia for adults today.

             Like the trees in Nausicaä, Miyazaki films act as a barrier of protection against this homogeneous toxicity by having the radical idea that women are three-dimensional people.  And while, yes, the monolith[9] is learning some better lessons these days, the change is usually motivated by profit rather than altruism; and the changes that they make are ultimately derivative of Miyazaki from 30 years ago.

EXAMPLE: REY IS NAUSICCA



EXHIBIT A



EXHIBIT B






  
                                                           
CONCLUSION
            Nausicca of the Valley of the Wind is one of the best princess films in existence and it acts as the proof of concept for Miyazaki’s entire career with the establishment of Studio Ghibli. A studio which is not motivated by profit, and seeks to only be able to make enough money to keep the lights on, and the creators working.  Nausicca has everything that is essential to a Miyazaki film. It is a film that represents the essence of its creator/director that it is the film that encapsulates his feelings on the world.   See it. Own it. Share it.                                                                     


[1] Miyazaki would go on to win this award an additional four times in his career with Nausicaa, Castle in the Sky, Totoro, and Ponyo also winning this award.  
[2] You see this happen even today whether that be the “release the Snyder cut” weirdos or the petition for The Last Jedi to no longer be canon.
[3] The cover adds a lot more men to the story that are not in the original film.
[4] In Sociology, there is a concept put forth by Charles H. Cooley called reference groups. These are individuals living or dead that we use to regulate and evaluate our own behavior. In reading about how Miyazaki feels that he has yet to do something significant makes me wonder who is in his reference group. In other words: who is he comparing himself to that feels so inadequate?
[6] Naomi Klein (2011) “Capitalism vs. The Climate.” The Nation
[7] Naomi Klein (2011) “Capitalism vs. The Climate.” The Nation
[8] We gain the ability to measure atmospheric CO2 in the 1980’s
[9] Disney

Tuesday, January 23, 2018

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.”
[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
[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