The Legend of Korra: Antagonists, Anomie and Authority

 The Legend of Korra  an animated continuation of the very popular animated series Avatar: the last Airbender, tackled more adult themes than the previous series and grappled with greater and more complex social commentary with the inclusion of “anarchic” and totalitarian groups in the show’s final two seasons. Each of these groups in their own way embody different sociological ideas of Durkheimian anomic structures, Weberian authority and the formation of social revolutions.

BACKGROUND 

Avatar: The Last Airbender and its sequel series The Legend of Korra is set in an ancient world heavily influenced by Chinese Mythology.  In this world the earth is divided into four different nation based upon the four natural elements (water, earth, fire and air). There is the Northern and Southern Water tribes, The Earth Kingdoms of Ba Singh Se and Omashu, The Fire Nation and The Air Nomads.  Each of these nations have a culture and rituals that is influenced by their totemic element. Additionally, some members of these nations are often born with the ability to manipulate their respective element. This behavior is called "bending".

        The titular "Avatar" is a single person in the whole world who can "bend" and master all four elements. Having a life cycle of 170 years, the Avatar acts as a spiritual leader, guide and general force for peace in the world (i.e. The Dali Lama). At the end of an Avatar's life they are reincarnated into the next nation in the “Avatar Cycle" (see above).This not only allows the Avatar to live on throughout history, the cycle of reincarnation allows the Avatar the ability to tap into the power of all her/his past lives at a single moment. This is called "The Avatar State".  

The show The Legend of Korra picks up 70 years after the end of the Airbender series with the training of the next Avatar in the cycle, a female water-bender named Korra. During the shows first two seasons there were questions about identity, and the use of identity politics to divide people. The second season balances out the Avatar’s role in the world as a bridge between the human and the spirit world. Just as in the first season where Korra quelled the tensions between benders (people who could manipulate the elements) and non-benders and then opened up the world to a greater spiritual change[1] by keeping the spirit portals open (after her battle with Unalaq and Vaatu) which allowed a chance for spirits and people to live together in harmony. Unfortunately, this action also directly lead to the unintentional release of dangerous criminals and their zealous leader, who in season three, creates such a disruption that it paves the way for a military dictatorship to take hold in its fourth and final season. Thus, it is the development and portrayal of the “villains/antagonists of The Legend of Korra that provides a lucrative allegory for social revolution.    

THE READ LOTUS: ANARCHY OR ANOMIE

 In the show’s opening we learn that Korra has been isolated from the world by a once secret society called “The Order of the White Lotus”. Originally, The Order of the White Lotus was a collection of fan favorite old masters in the original series who, by series end, had revealed themselves. In the finale, the order helped the previous avatar, Avatar Aang, in defeating Firelord Ozai and ending the 100 years’ war. Since that time, The White Lotus came out of hiding and openly supported the Avatar and when he was reincarnated into Korra, they were instrumental in her training and protection. It wasn’t until season three that we learn that there were some in the order that did not agree with the overall decision to expose themselves to the world. This division eventually led to the creation of a splinter group that called themselves “The Red Lotus”

The original leader of The Red Lotus was a White Lotus member by the name of Xai Bau. The original intention of the Red Lotus was to create balance between humans and spirits. To achieve that end, prior to the beginning of Korra, The Red Lotus attempted to kidnap Korra when she was a baby with the supposed intention to train her with each member of the Red Lotus being her masters and get her to release the dark spirit Vaatu [2] Having failed in this attempt, four members of the Red Lotus were captured and detained in specialized prisons for 13 years. During the time between seasons 2 and 3 the leader of this group Zaheer able to unlock air-bending abilities due to the energy released during harmonic convergence. Once he frees himself and his compatriots he sets in motion a plan to dismantle the four nations by assassination and ending the “Avatar Cycle” by murdering the Avatar while in the Avatar State.

 “The idea of having nations and governments is as foolish as keeping the human and spirit realms separate.”- Zaheer

Many who have analyzed the actions of The Red Lotus during the events of season three are often quick to label this group not only as terrorists[3] but as anarchists. While this is technically true, The Red Lotus does seek a world without the systematic structure of various types of authority (the aforementioned four elemental nations’ governments and the Avatar); the show, and additional reading material available, often implies the term “chaos” to summarize the desires of the order.

Sociologically speaking, this is a conflation of terms between anarchy and Durkheim’s idea of anomie. The disorder that is created from a toppling of governments through the assassination of world leaders and religious icons does fit into the basic definition of anarchy. However, the description of that disorder as “chaos” does not fit. This is because, as Durkheim points out in his seminal text The Division of Labor in Society,  the lack of governments (and order) does not create complete chaos because there are still the unwritten social rules and norms that we learn, through the process of socialization, to abide by. Through this social learning process, we guide individuals into internalizing certain moral values and behaviors that make a society/social order possible. Therefore, it is feasible (and supported through historical evidence) that societies and its people can survive the death of authorities, ruling classes, and many other various changes to different social structures.  Yet, if the social norms were to also be disrupted, and there was no socially agreed upon set of rules/ behaviors along with no structure to help keep the peace; then that would be anomie. Anomie is a period of normlessness within a society causing a lack of social norms to governing behavior; thereby devolving into “chaos”. Since this is not their intention, they are not chaotic, but they are still anarchistic.

KUVIRA: WEBERIAN DICTATORSHIP

            It is through the uncertainty created by The Read Lotus in both the successful and attempted assassinations of political and religious leaders (the earth queen and Korra respectively) that allowed for the rise of an imperial dictatorship during the 3 year gap between Korra’s third and fourth seasons. During that time, Kuvira, an officer in the metal-bending army of Zao Fu was charged by the Republic City council to stabilize the Earth Kingdom from bandits and oversee the distribution of resources until a new ruler can be elected. However, throughout the season we quickly learn that rather than keep the peace, Kuvira has usurped power by strong arming independent states in order to unify the Earth Kingdom under her own solitary rule. The major conflict arises when Kuvira sets her sights on her home of Zao Fu and the Independent Republic City[4] which she views as occupied Earth Kingdom territory.

            Kuvira’s actions can be viewed sociologically through the work of Max Weber, particularly his work titled Economy and Society in which Weber discussed the issues of authorities. Weber points out that a certain type of authority will develop into a specific type of social structure. In the text, Weber outlines three types of authority that will develop into three different social structures.

Those three types of Authority are:

•  Traditional Authority that is derived from bloodline, birth order or religion
• Charismatic Authority that is derived from the power given to a particular person due to their ability to manipulate the populace and get them to relinquish their power
• Bureaucratic/ Rational a type of authority that treats everyone the same (usually as mindless drones) and gives people access to power (even though that access is usually through some labyrinthine complex process more meant to confuse than help.

Traditional types of authority will lead to the development of a monarchy whereas a bureaucratic rational authority will lead to a bureaucracy. In line with these types, Kuvira in season four is identified as a Charismatic leader that, according to Weber, will create a dictatorship. In fact, many of her actions, organizations, and methods of control are modeled after several types of historic and contemporary dictatorships[5] However, Weber also mentions that many of these types of authority can also exist within other social structures without being the catalyst for a type of specific social structure. Many charismatic leaders have also existed without the development of a dictatorship because in a monarchy, republic, democracy or bureaucracy limits are put in place to curtail the potential power of solitary rulers. However, in Korra it was the power vacuum created by The Red Lotus that allowed Kuvira to amass power and thus change the social structure from a Monarchy to a Dictatorship.

ANTAGONISTS OF KORRA DESIRE REVOLUTION

            Revolutionary scholar Jack Goldstone in his book Revolutions: A Very Short Introduction identifies five conditions that make a society ripe for revolution

Those five conditions are:

-          Economic and fiscal strain

-          Alienation and opposition among the elites

-          Widespread anger and injustice

-          A persuasive shared narrative of resistance

-          Normal social mechanism are unlikely to work

Goldstone notes that is unlikely to have each one of these conditions happen at the same time. This is because a social structure is not a passive thing, it is actively influenced and manipulated by those in power or those who seek power. While these conditions may not cause a revolution, they create a state of what Goldstone calls unstable equilibrium. This is where a society is functioning due to various social conditions (see above), but one small disturbance leads to an even larger departure from the status quo. Gladstone mentions that the mechanism that causes this instability may not be a single event, instead it may be more gradual; happening over months or even years.

According to Goldstone, once this equilibrium is upset there are several structural causes of revolutions:

·         Demographic Change- when population grows rapidly the institutional social order can suffer in their (inability) to deal with resource distribution and structural social change

·         War- can weaken state authorities and empower groups within society

·         Rapid Unequal Technological Advancement – can be used against a populace and maintain control

·         New periods of exclusion, discrimination and inequality

·         The entrenchment of elected leaders or heads of Military regimes

These components are often the causes of frayed social relationships that may cause individuals to turn against the state and for state structures to crumble 

The overall plot of the The Legend of Korra can act as an illustration of these revolutionary themes put forth by Goldstone. If one was to look at the series as a whole, it was the unstable equilibrium created by Korra being the first Avatar that did not travel the world (and to all of the different nations) in order to learn to manipulate all of the elements. Instead, Korra was isolated and only trained by the White Lotus allowing them to shape her as they saw fit. The shift out of this unstable equilibrium happened when Korra decided to leave the South Pole and live in Republic City; setting off the events of the series and the several structural causes of revolution:

·         New periods of exclusion and discrimination

This aspect of Goldstone’s roadmap to revolution began in season 1 of Korra where Amon a revolutionary leader of a group known as the “Equalists” stoked tensions and discrimination between Benders and non-benders. In this season,  Korra, even though she is the ultimate apex bender, understands that she represents all people, bender and non-bender alike.

·         War

Korra is another illustration of Goldstone’s ideas through the Civil War arc between the Northern and Southern Water Tribe. This occupation and conflict continued throughout the latter half of season 2.[6] This splits loyalties and not only causes various amounts of disruption that disruption is felt on the physical and spiritual plain

·         Demographic Change

The demographic change that could lead to revolution as Goldstone mentions is the reemergence of air benders[7] and their attempt to be considered a nation during Season 3 of Korra. All of a sudden one of the main characters (Tenzin) becomes the defacto leader of group of people who may have airbending skills but are not enculturated to the nomadic existence of airbender culture. Additionally, the reemergence of the air benders included the unintended consequence of granting Zaheer, the leader of The Red Lotus Airbending a change that the authority of The White Lotus was not expecting which gave Zaheer an edge, contributing to his escape and the release of the other Red Lotus members.

·         The Entrenchment of Heads of Military regimes This is embodied in Kuvira and her actions throughout season 4, especially during the coronation of Prince Wu.

·         Rapid Unequal Technological Advancement This takes place when Kuvira invades Zao Fu  to steal their platinum in order to create a “unbendable” giant machine that she can control from the inside; tipping the technological balance in her favor. 

Thus, these are the very clear examples of how the antagonists of legend of Korra, and the development of Korra as a series is a meditation on the nature and creation of Revolutions; and what happens after; once the dust settles.

CONCLUSION

The Legend of Korra and its predecessor Avatar: The Last Airbender are socially conscious, feminist, environmentally friendly pieces of pop culture that are rich in sociological data and worthy of sociological analysis from many different perspectives. If you are interested in sociological ideas, or you are a sociologist yourself (I mean who else would read this blog if you aren’t at least sociology adjacent), I recommend the series whole heartedly and hope that other sociologists will write on the impact and brilliance of these shows. Remember the Sociology mantra: “Data is everywhere, and it is glorious.”

---

[1] Certainly, anyone focusing on the sociology of religion (not my particular specialty) could do a whooper of an article on the Interesting religious implications of Season 2 and the allegory of the importance of becoming more spiritually open as a person, especially as we age and question the things we were taught when we were young

[2] The Spirit Vaatu was a main antagonist in Season 2. During season 3 it is revealed that Korra’s uncle was a Red Lotus member who had joined the order so he would be able to set his plan in motion to become a “Dark Avatar”

[3] This term is only partially correct as it is unclear that the way that The Red Lotus uses violence or the threat of it is in order to create fear.  However, it seems one of their goals in to create intense social disruption which is in line with the basic definition of terrorism.

[4] which became independent of the Earth Kingdom during the time of Avatar Aang and a place where all people of all nations could live

[5] North Korea for example

[6] It is also important to note that the leader of the occupation and the start of the civil war was a former member of the Red L:otus

[7] Due to Korra’s choice to keep the portals open

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