I enjoyed our discussion of the
objects presented in class on Tuesday, but one of the problems that I
had with the examples that we used is that while they all
demonstrated interesting kinds of manipulation, they did so in ways
that weren't very fundamental to our thought-processes. It certainly
is true that many different advertisements subtly (or not so subtly)
influence the way we think, but they are manipulations that we can
recognize and, more importantly, ignore if we wish to do so.
As such, I've been trying to find some
more fundamental forms of manipulative thought, kinds that we do not
readily notice or cannot regularly ignore. And to me, the first
example that popped into my head was money.
I've talked to several people who are
currently taking economics about there experience, and almost
invariably, they have all mentioned their surprise at rediscovering
how money actually works. After all, it does objectively seem like
quite an odd system. The fact that I can take a small piece of paper
into any store in the United States and come out with some thing of
real value is somewhat strange- the paper, while quite pretty, has no
intrinsic value in of itself. It's value lies solely in the value we
attach to it as a nation. Which changes almost constantly, in
inflationary terms. Even if you shy away from quantitative reasoning
(I am certainly not very good at it), one of the most important
lessons that can be gleaned from an economics class is that money
works because people believe in it. In lots of cases, this kind of
systematic self-manipulation that the country embroils itself in
works very well, but its easier to highlight the negative examples;
the reason that the stock markets crash is because people expect them
to crash, and so they sell their stocks, When they do so, those
stocks lose value, fueling the belief that there will be a crash,
which then causes more people to withdraw their money, and so on.
I am certainly not claiming that this
is the only interesting feature of money that even light training in
economics can afford, but it is a startling one, and people often
make note of it. It is a form of macroscopic self-manipulation. The
system arises out of belief in the system, and can only be maintained
as long as belief remains.
To end, a quick speech about humans
and belief spoken, strangely enough, by Death the anthropomorphic
personification. The clip is from a TV-adaption of the
Discword-series book Hogfather
by Terry Pratchett, whose books I strongly recommend. The clip is
definitely cheesy, but strikes at the heart of what I wanted to
explore.
You have an interesting point that our class seemed to gravitate towards the objects that are advertised to us in the media. It seems that even though it's fairly easy to ignore ads that aren't relevant to our lifestyles or interests, we are simply so inundated with ads that they have become almost synonymous with manipulation. Even ads that do appeal to us automatically fall under the banner of manipulation because it is still some outside institution marketing a product by strategically using words, images and concepts that they have calculated would be the most appealing to their target audience. I think it's the fact that we recognize ourselves as an audience that someone is trying to win over is what makes us identify advertising as synonymous with manipulation. I tried to think of an object that hadn't been marketed to me that I would still consider manipulative, and I almost immediately encountered problems because almost all of the things I own were sold to me by companies and advertisers. The object I eventually settled on was the sketchbook my sister made for me: it's not a product of the media, but it is still manipulative in that I use it as a way of defining myself and becase owning a sketchbook (or several) makes me feel like I have an obligation to draw. I think this is more like the manipulation that is "fundamental to our though processes" that you demonstrated with the example of money.
ReplyDeleteAlso, props for mentioning Terry Pratchett; he's one of my favorite authors and often has comedic insights that are totally appropriate to the kind of social commentary we do in class.