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
