A New Focus
I found this quote in Naomi Klein's 'No Logo':
"This is what Leslie Savan, author of The Sponsored Life, describes as symptom number one of the sponsored mindset: we become collectively convinced not that corporations are hitching a ride on our cultural and communal activities, but that creativity and congregation would be impossible without their generosity." (italics are mine)
Any comments?
"This is what Leslie Savan, author of The Sponsored Life, describes as symptom number one of the sponsored mindset: we become collectively convinced not that corporations are hitching a ride on our cultural and communal activities, but that creativity and congregation would be impossible without their generosity." (italics are mine)
Any comments?
posted by sleiman @ 12:12 AM
2 Comments:
At 12:49 AM, March 04, 2006,
KH said…
I'm going to writing this quickly before I go to bed - so my apologies, in advance, for anything that may not flow perfectly...
You make a good point, Danny. I get angry at people attacking this mythical structure called "the corporation" without knowledge of what a corporation is or what "it" or the people that create its separate legal personality can do.
I also get angry when people like Naomi Klein (who used every branding trick in the book to promote ‘No Logo’) and her ilk use public ignorance to promote fear of the mythical beast and deflect attention from the real issue – why there is growing apathy within society.
While parallels can be drawn between Governments and large companies that market well-known brands, there are some glaring differences. Despite the illusion of representative Government, in most affluent Western countries we, as citizens, get to make a choice every few years from 2 fairly unattractive options and our ability to influence as individuals generally stops there. As consumers we each get to make far more frequent decisions that have a direct effect on the operations of companies – give them money or don’t.
Because of this the dialogue between corporation and consumer is far more relevant than that of Government and citizen and, whereas before power was only deferred to government bodies, now it is also deferred to those organisations that can provide the goods and services which can instantly make our life more fulfilling… at least until the next PlayStation comes out.
Ask many of your peers and I’m sure many would disagree with the hyperbolic statement that “creativity and congregation would be impossible without their (corporations’) generosity”.
What they might agree with, however, is that many consumer/citizens acquiesce to the offerings of marketers and permit the organisations they represent to “hitch a ride” – because at least these organisations try and often succeed in fulfilling our needs (albeit in many cases that may be immediate needs without fear nor care for the future)
I guess this ties into your earlier post, Sleiman, about the masses choosing to remain ignorant or uninvolved. So, “no”, Ms. Savan, even though what you say may have its roots in the truth (when not exaggerated) it is not symptomatic of the “sponsored mindset” (whatever new-age anti-corporation mumbo-jumbo that is). It may be, however, symptomatic of the fact that societal apathy, which exists for many and varied reasons, creates an environment in which branded goods provide us with meaningful dialogue that is not available from the structures in society (parents, schools, government etc.) which traditionally provided them.
Don’t hate the player, hate the game.
At 1:32 AM, March 04, 2006,
Anonymous said…
That's why I find 'conspiracy' theories just that, theories.
If I were to use the term 'conspiracy' the way that activists use it, I would qualify it by adding the term 'natural'. Natural in the sense of the saying, 'birds of a feather flock together'.
Where this flocking of birds goes astray, in my opinion, is when people or groups relinquish themselves of personal resonsibility for the way that they see and understand the world.
This is where I see the 'truth' of the initial post. This is also where the beginnings of my previous post mentioning the 'masses' can be understood.
People having a meaningful dialogue with corporations because that is the only relevant avenue available is something that I can understand but it is also something that I pity.
I think that the most 'meaningful dialogue' a person can have is with oneself. From this base, one can judge just how meaningful other dialogues are.
Isn't the game made up of the players? As they say, you've got to be in it to win it, but, just what is it that we are supposed to win?
By the way, this isn't an attack on commerce. Rather, it's an attempt to use commerce as a mirror to see humanity. This is the kind of direction I had in mind when I first read the quote.
Reading Kim's reply reminded me that people like the author of the quote create their own 'specialities' that only exist because of the war they are fighting.
Does that absolve the 'corporation' of any wrongdoing? No, but it does confirm for me that one has to avoid BOTH sides in order to 'get it'.
Hence, the idea that only the ordinary man is great...
Post a Comment
<< Home