Identity and Reason

AIG has decided to change its name to AIU Holdings Ltd., and this has stuck a strange chord within me. Not too long ago we saw Blackwater change its name to Xe, and now we have another corporate entity changing its name to avoid public backlash. Admittedly, its only fitting that these entities scramble their familiarity to retain competitive leverage, but the question I find myself asking is just how functional is this conceptually? Corporations have legal personhood in our society, meaning their entity is treated as a singule citizen in both cases against them as well as in political representation, so even in viewing it in terms of fairness against the common I have a hard time reconciling the weight of this. I mean, when a felon changes their name after getting out of prison we don't drop all charges against them, levying to accept his or her sincerity in change as greater on account of it. For me, this goes beyond an assault on corporate personhood into a realm where we stand back and look at exactly what the fuck we've created.

I can't say that I'm a person who damns corporations outright, but there is a certain degree of responsibility they should be held to. Its just upsetting to see that they can manipulate public perceptions so easily, and while I'm sure its going to cost them millions of dollars to accomplish this shift there's something that just doesn't meld well within me. It's come to a point in our society where our identities are under assault in such a drastic sense, and I can't say its any one party to blame; its just something that's apparent and unhealthy. There are options offered to those financially capable and influential enough to forget their misgivings, but those same escapes aren't afforded to the many. We find ourselves under constant bombardment from advertisers trying to crux our personal value and identity, and yet the symptoms of this are largely left in silence. People in America are dissident and depressed, malcontented and inconsolable. Are we really supposed to believe that this isn't a reaction to the assault on our senses at a nearly nonstop pace?

I'd say this is the ugly reflection of my previous point, being that capitalism spawns complacency; the idea that this same complacency is an intense and uneccessary gaze into our personhood. I'm in no way vouching for the idea when I present it, but could it be that we're simply too mollycoddled and too comfortable for our minds to be able to rest comfortably against our primitive convictions? I think something like this is mostly sensationalized, but there's also an aspect that interests me within it.

I was recently reading an article which talked about transhuman architecture, or an architectural approach which kept things difficult and uncomfortable for the dweller, much like a natural environment. Some of the threat of the actual wild was left out (i.e. predators), but the idea of an environment in which the inhabitant is constantly forced to think constructively about how to accomplish tasks is an interesting one. Would someone actually benefit from being in an adversarial situation like this or is it all just fanfare? Maybe the question I should be asking is this: How do we regain our right to self manifestation and personhood in a society where almost everything is force-fed to us and nothing is safe from the touch of the marketplace.

I'd like to look back at another subject I've referenced here, that of John Dos Passos and the U.S.A. trilogy. As I said when addressing it, the point of these books was to question the aim of this country as a realm of self creation above all in a world that was structured and oppressive against the uncommon. Should we consider ourselves less free than the characters presented in these novels as a result of the omniscient presence of corporate needs, or are they largely indifferent? I'm inclined to say they aren't, but its also hard to judge against a point in the past where modernism was so prevalent and beliefs held a harsher conviction than they do now. Conversely, I don't think people felt as compromised or assaulted as we do now, which is a testament against a financial world which constantly wants our attention. Its a hard point to lobby.

What I'm trying to say here is exactly how many exceptions are we willing to let corporate America afford? They have personhood, but they also have our personhood, and the cycle seems broken. I'm willing to confess that the problem is in part due to the (currently) lacking conversational ability to bring about change coupled with a moral dilemma which can be pinned to no one particular party besides the practice, but that doesn't mean the rules of the game shouldn't be changed to protect our contentment. In simplest terms, being told that our desire for material goods should never be substantiated doesn't really seem like a healthy way to go about living, and while the economic influx has been beneficial in some senses, its a practice that's far from perfectly honed. I'm not sure the voice against these practices has evolved into anything which can offer a shift or compromise which is at all satisfactory, but the voice is there. People are upset and complacent, and how are we supposed to break this practice without breaking the market which offers us prosperity and health?

Two steps forward

I may have overstated myself in my previous entry, so I wanted to take this opportunity to slow it down so we can speed it up.

In using the term "hope" in my previous entry, I in no way am trying to say that I believe that there is some sort of ultimate culmination to our cultural pursuits; I do not believe in a Utopian end to our efforts. Instead, what I mean in my use of hope is that things will generally get better for everyone in terms of basic and essential needs, i.e. food, shelter, healthcare etc. When I say these things, they do not at all reflect potential for contentment, improved demeanor or overall happiness. If anything, we've found ourselves stagnated in response to the success of the marketplace, with people becoming trite and vacuous. Capital invokes complacency. As a person who spends a large amount of time in strangers' homes, I can't say I see a whole lot of diversity. Rarely (if ever) do I see customers with a decent selection of literature or quality films in their house, and maybe its my sour approach to my job which causes me to view these people so negatively, but I have to think of this as an instance where it takes two to tango.

I want to get back to this idea that capital invokes complacency, because it's something I've been thinking about a lot lately. In essence, its this idea that the more things are provided for us, the less people are interested in self manifestation and improvement, probably because the approach of the new is silenced by the needs of the marketplace. In a society where immediacy oftentimes trumps practicality, there are a lot of ways we can look at ourselves and say we've taken the wrong step. It just seems like people are more willing to be force fed things that aren't necessarily what they want, and I think the American cultural perception of what's artistically nifty reflects this via things like The Da vinchi code, Titanic and Live Laugh Love placards. I'm sorry if you like all three of those things.

Maybe things have always been this way, and to a large extent I'd say thats right, but there's also this creeping fear inside of me which says that people are more apt to accept what they're told to do now than they have been in recent and comparable American history. Maybe its that what they're willing to accept is more dangerous and emotionally bereft than it has been before. That could be the case. It just seems like there's no actual desire to break the status quo, and whatever desire there is is typically outweighed by a desire to become famous once the shackles are broken rather than continued pursuit of what's actually good or useful. When i see these hackneyed attempts by people to make a moment mean something or create something beautiful it feels so forced, as though there's no sanctuary to hide in from the corporate ghosts. And I don't mean this in a personal sense because I have a lot of friends who I'm proud of and who I don't think fit into this mold at all, but what I'm talking about is in a global sense, and how average people while their time away.

I may have gotten a little off track, but what I wanted to say here was that I don't believe that society will get more prosperous and survivable on account of an abstraction like hope but instead out of necessity. We will always be moved towards what is in our best interests, and better sense of global fraternity should typically be viewed as the easiest way for us to get by in a world that is increasingly plural. Generally, this progress can be viewed positively, but its no reason to stop prodding society to improve conditions and allow inspiration for new thoughts. I may have contradicted myself here, but if you have a problem with it either write a comment or go fuck yourself.

Hope and Indetermination

Despite my grim and often contrary perception of others, I for some reason find myself with an undying optimism for tomorrow. Maybe I've relinquished myself further than others and therfore can apologize for more than others allow themselves, understanding that the horrific and traumatic are aspects of life which are fairly necessary, and in simplest gratitude I think I could be okay with the idea that the human race continues on only (granted the example survives for further generations).

My brother came to visit a couple of weeks ago and it was interesting how our perspectives differed. He's much less likely to be critical of isolated incidents as I am, but he conversely doesn't share my (perhaps bizarre or misplaced) optimism. He's much more critical of the poor educational system we find ourselves with and doesn't agree at all with my ideas on God's death in the first world. I, in juxtaposition, am constantly chomping at the bit for things to complain about and confounded by the amount of shepherding done by society, but somehow this negativity doesn't crush my overarching perspective on things and strangely detached optimism for a humanity I'm disgusted by on a personal level.

I still believe that history serves as a compass which is generally helpful in our decision making process, and I think that besides this all society needs is to slowly be deconstructed. People still hold onto the stigmas of the past (racism, sexism, etc etc etc) in a world where those things are less and less helpful. In an honest capitalist sensibility, segregating the marketplace is in almost all ways detrimental, and I think its the perpetuation of this global market which does allow for a lot of added equality, because all people at the top want as many people as possible giving them money.

Problems arise on a personal level and in terms of employment. Where we want to appeal to a certain segment of society in one sense, we concurrently draw them back through an exploitation of labor. This is why the free market in itself doesn't work. We need people watching out for the commonwealth, because the aristocratic will always be trying to appeal to the broadest spectrum possible but rarely recognize that their pursuit of this damages those directly beneath them through unfair wages, unfair treatment of ethnicities and unfair hiring and promotional practices. Throughout history, this has been a balancing act.

Now we find ourselves on a global scale, a place where prejudices and bigotry are (as best as we can enact it) left to cower in the shadows. This is a work in progress. My argument is that things have never been so good for so many people at any point in the past, but that's no reason to soften our resolve or believe that this is as good as it gets. When the largest amount of people work together, the largest amount of people prosper. Capitalism, even in its flaws, accomplishes this appeal to commonality and fraternity better than anything before it at least. Monarchies, Oligarchies (even though this is still us in some senses), Communism, etc never provided the prosperity we now find ourselves with. This is why I can't just look at society and view us as fucked. The contented who suffer and the stubborn have always existed, but they've also always been forced to flex. The point we find ourselves at is no different, albeit frustrating. Universal freedom wrought in a common understanding of one's best interest on a grand scale works much better than a theistic mandate. I think that eventually the idea that what works best doesn't need to step on one's personal beliefs can gain traction, its just the subject is particularly hot and contentious right now. Feelings will settle and things will continue to move forward. More on this later.