Brain-dump:
I'm sitting in Jordan Hall, wearing Birkenstocks, a bandanna, a Threadless graphic t-shirt, Goodwill-bought pants, and a zip-up H&M hoody. Bizarrely, I'm wearing gym shorts under my pants. Apparently I had at one point of the "let's get dressed and leave the apartment" part of my afternoon, thought I was going to the (highly "fitness-glam") gym at school today. (Do you know what I mean?)
I'm also sipping my corporate designer coffee-type drink (I am called "Ms. Macchiato" by some), over-sweet owing to the addition of too much artificial sweetener, which I had to mix in with my fingers, no other tools available to me. I have my iPod and my Timbuk2 bag(s!) and my Apple computer. I've got books on Queer Theory and Buddhism(-ish) out on the desk. All I'm really lacking is an old Volvo (though my Subaru comes close to the ideal, doesn't it?) and a hemp necklace I made myself.
Several conclusions can be made from all this. 1) Aren't I a cute little LAS hippy? 2) Isn't branding disgusting? Now, I didn't intend to be a consumer poster-child, but that fact makes it all the more sinister, doesn't it? And the recent and seemingly growing conflation with a certain brand of liberal with material goods – often products like, but not limited to, Brikenstock, Starbucks, Timbuk2 – is more than a little disconcerting. Aren't we supposed to be anti-corporate?
The argument could be made that associations these particular brands evoke (Starbucks with Cafes and Timbuk2 with San Fransisco, for instance) make them especially attractive to those who lean to the left. But I'm too lazy to develop such an argument, so let's just say I did, and Godspeed me back to developing arguments for which I will actually receive a grade.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
See Brooks, David, BoBos in Paradise.
Hmmmmmmmmm.... It's an interesting concept for a book. I do love that he says that "Dumb, good-looking people with great parents have been displaced by smart, ambitious, educated, and anti-establishment people with scuffed shoes." More from the review I cam upon (By Stuart Walker in _Design Issues_):
Brooks looks at contemporary consumption patterns, contrasting them with previous times. The new elite prefer expensive specialty coffees, gourmet breads and organic vegetables, they prefer educational toys and all-terrain baby carriages for their children and furniture that looks old and battered, often with allusions to European peasantry rather than European aristocracy that was the inclination of previous"elite" generations.
And this is all very interesting. On the down side, the reviewer notes that Brooks isn't all that critical of this lifestyle. Also, it always makes me twitchy when people speak about "class" like it's a stable construct, but whatever. Marxism will never die, apparently.
And yeah... I must back to work.
H'mh, myself.
Brooks isn't critical of BoBos, but he is satirical. He makes it very clear that the values they often promote themselves, through their possessions, as having, are not very much lived. A couple of points, though:
- People have made insincere displays of values since at least the court of Louis XIV. It's harder to be outraged when it's so far from a novelty.
- The values being emulated are not that bad, and aspiration does count for something.
Finally, some name brands actually deliver quality. My Timbuk2 bag, my Apple computer, and my New Balance walking shoes do their jobs exceptionally well. I don't mind the red TB2 tag, or the black-on-black N, on them, because they're unobtrusive. The apple is a bit out-there, but I think I've paid my dues for the political statement it makes.
"Class" is an epiphenomenon describing observable clusters of behavior. It's a useful shorthand. But I don't believe it is a moral category. Brooks's training is in sociology, where I don't doubt it's a term of art.
Post a Comment