But there is another constraint to the possibility of talking about the limits of need and desire above and beyond the language-theoretical limitations.
There is a taboo in our society against suggesting that there are any appropriate limits to either the desire for material goods, or their consumption; and anyone who transgresses risks being prosecuted for industrial sabotage, reprimanded for calling the kettle black, or simply ripped to shreds on the spot by Mrs. Grundy.
None of us, I am sure, relishes the thought of seeing our head brought in upon a platter.
If you register, (it's free), you can comment on this post. Don't forget to confirm your email address!
Contributions and Comments
Over the holidays, I was reminded of why I try to practice “mental hygiene” by refraining from consuming news. Even the so-called “progressive” news. Because more often than not, in its form, as well as its content, the news experience is teaching us to consume.
In one radio interview, the reporter asked if it weren’t our duty as Americans to shop, in order to bolster the US economy. The reporter, who appeared educated and intelligent, was serious. She is not the only smart person in the US who equates purchase and investment. In fact, I think it’s the norm.
I’ve got a hunch that this norm—this recipe for economic and social development—has its roots in the New Deal. It’s not that the New Deal was necessarily bad, but it seems that today’s hyper-consumerism may be its evil grandchild.
The sellers of the New Deal, marketing geniuses who honed their skill as propagandists during the War, trained the American people to believe that to produce and to consume was to grow the economy and strengthen the nation. I hear the same argument defending what I consider a vicious circle of marketing-consumption-waste-production.
As you know, BBC has produced an interesting series on the topic.
Your Duty to Shop, From the Office of Consumer Insecurity
Personally, I prefer duty-free shopping. And it has the advantage of being a real pain to plan for, so is an effective deterrent to shopping right there.
Then again, now that they offer chocolate, of all kinds, in such alluring packaging….
What a great thought experiment, a campaign to “Buy Duty Free Only”? Can you imagine where that might lead us?
It might have the effect of cutting down buying and consumption. Or speed up the airport lines.
It might also have insidious effect of giving the government an excuse to implement more check points. Imagine all the places that could serve as transit zones: toll booths, bus and train terminals, gas stations, video stops, parking garages at the mall and drive thru MacDonald’s.
Seems preposterous? But then again the US since 2001 seems to be an experiment in the preposterous. Who could have imagined Americans embracing the Patriot Act?
Interesting machinations, but this idea smacks of the all to plausible. I shutter at the prospect of the the marriage of convenience that could be struck between “buy duty free only” and the advent of a multitude of “transit zones for security”. If we’re going to indulge such thoughts, it’s time to get the bums out.