Quote: Original post by Oluseyi

Quote: Original post by LessBread
I have to disagree somewhat with the idea that the economic recession is the result of too many people buying into all the doom and gloom forecasts and negative publicity. It seems to me more the case that the bubbles that lead to this recession - subprime etc. but also enron and the dotbomb - were the result of too many people buying into the hyperbole and phony cheerfulness. The doom and gloom forecasts were ignored when it mattered, when fixing things would have been less painful. That's one of the points Hedges makes: This magical thinking is largely responsible for our economic collapse, since any Cassandra who saw it coming was dismissed as "negative." The lethargy of present levels of consumption, the primary factor behind the persistence of the recession, is more a reflection of sobriety, a coming to grips with the ugly reality of the damage done after years of binge drinking (so to speak).

You make compelling arguments. I was thinking of the emphasis on "consumer confidence" as an index of predictable growth (since consumer spending accounts for some 70% of economic activity), but you're right that the doom and gloom was ignored prior to the fall. Is it possible that it is now being overvalued, that many commentators and the consumers who listen to them are perpetually on the hype train rather than the information train, and consequently constantly "behind the curve"?

It's possible, and commentators are often behind the curve, but I don't think that's the case. For example, consider how this week's news that the recession has flattened out has been presented. Many commentators have grabbed onto it as a sign that the bubble is about to be re-inflated and there are good times just around the corner. There probably are not as many commentators with rosy glasses as there were during the bubbles, but they're still around, just itching to dust off the old scripts. In contrast, I see three sources for the present doom and gloom. The first is honest analysis, commentators calling it as they see it (that doesn't mean their analysis is correct, only that it's honest). The second is partisan analysis, commentators eager to attack President Obama because he's a Democrat (the corollary are commentators eager to praise him for the same reason). The third is also partisan analysis, not political partisan, but media partisan. These commentators attack any President midway through his first year in office, after the honeymoon. These are people who quickly grow bored with the celebrity/popularity of the President and want to take him down a peg. In effect, they want to send the message that "we made you, we can break you". Their boredom shows in their snark, their blasé view of the world. Maureen Dowd and Dana Milbank are two examples of this kind of commentator.

Quote: Original post by Oluseyi

Quote: Original post by slayemin
What's even more scary is that people seem to think that this goes in hand with being "professional" and they don't even have to be told to act fake. They coerce themselves! Is it a cost of staying in business and being competitive? Is the customer experience so important that we delude them with fake happiness?

The coercion is not exclusive to corporations, though, which is why so many people adopt it unbidden. How many of your casual acquaintances, when asking "How are you?" do you think really want to know how you are? Want to know about your foul mood, difficulties paying the bills, problems with your wife and how you hate your boss - or how ecstatic you are over an accepted proposal and a consequent promotion? People seem to just want the perfunctory answer "I'm fine, thanks for asking. You?" because they really don't care. It's just small talk.

And since people aren't interested in the states of others, they assume they shouldn't share theirs either.

I was once in a church where an elderly gentleman said "Hello" and I responded "Hi," quietly and without all the false enthusiasm. He complained, "There's no need to growl." I was taken aback, and a little bit offended (and considered it a racist affront at the time to assume that I, as a black man, would growl; I'm older now and just view it as an old man expecting the feigned joy that everyone shares at church and surprised to find otherwise). Maybe if we eliminated the ritual of inquiry, replacing it instead with a brief, cordial-but-not-necessarily-cheerful "Hello" or "Good morning," we'd get past this? Or maybe not.

I was a fool once. I thought the "hello, how are you?" was small talk so I'd try to come up with some totally off the wall answers. Here's a rough transcript of a conversation I had with a dear friend who is no longer a friend.

Her: "Hi Eric! How are you?"
Me: (In chipper tone) "I'm dying of cancer! How are you?"
Her: "What?! You are?"
Me: (pause) "No, not really."
Her: "Well, why would you say that then?"
Me: "Because I think people really don't care when they ask how you are"
Her: "Eric, I really do care about how you're doing."
(and then she got offended about me thinking that I thought she didn't care)
Her: "It's not even funny to joke about having cancer." (lecture on how I was wrong)

I had a nice serving of humble pie.

So, now when people ask me how I'm doing, I tell them. If they don't care, then it's their fault for asking a question they didn't honestly want answered. Me? I just don't ask people how they're doing if I really don't care.

Quote: Original post by slayemin
So, now when people ask me how I'm doing, I tell them. If they don't care, then it's their fault for asking a question they didn't honestly want answered. Me? I just don't ask people how they're doing if I really don't care.

I've started doing that, myself. When you say something enough times without really meaning it, it starts to lose meaning. I think it catches people a little off guard, though, when I respond seriously. The conversation tends to either slow down or accelerate after that, depending on who I'm with at the time.

Urg, this sounds a little to close to comfort for the office politics that occurred when I was working at a big publisher studio.

I think the best example of "happy thoughts" I encountered was the home page of the studio/publisher website.

Before the market crash there was a small shareprice chart that showed the value of that publishers shares.

For a good 8 months from when the market dropped to early this year that chart magically vanished from the front page. Any questions as to why it wasn't on the front page was never answered or side stepped.

I feel somewhat conflicted on the issue. On one hand I have no problem viewing the corporate world as people that use people for their own benefit. Attempting to get people to buy into some idea that there is some great virtue in caring and sacrificing for the company. All a part of some great system to motivate workers at the bottom of the ladder into a more productive state that benefits the people at the top of the ladder. I've met high ups that would sweep in and pretend to care about their worker bees then be found to be smashing them in meetings elsewhere. It always felt like a show where they understood that behavior X makes worker's more happy because some book told them so. Behind the eyes there was no understanding as to WHY being nice and respectful made people happy.

I most certainly don't think people are rewarded for effort. Many people work tirelessly for almost nothing so that their boss can enjoy his "attracted" life. At some point amassing wealth has to come at the expense of others.

On the other hand I do think there is something to one's attitude. While I'm not sure I like it being taken to a religious mentality, it always seems like people with bigger personalities and less talent find them self moving up, simply because they had the audacity to keep trying, or by stepping over someone else to get where they want. Some of that is having the misfortune to be the tacky SOB that is willing to use others for gain. Sometimes though people, like me, just quit and are pacified so easily that nothing gets done. If I quit the race before the finish line then who's to blame for that?

Then I ask why is there even a finish line? Why do I have to run so damn hard all the time just to keep from being swallowed up financially? Why can't I stop and smell the roses ? Is it because someone else bought all the roses and is now selling sniffs for 25$ a pop?

Quote: Original post by Prefect

it's a form of social engineering that I suspect can work quite well, especially on less thinking people.

The problem is that it works on thinking people, but in a different way. The faster someone can learn, the faster they can learn this, but when they find themselves to be apart from the collective, what they learn from it can be very, very negative.

Some people weren't meant to be a part of that collective, yet hate themselves for it.

Not related to work environments, but a similar thing that bothers me is that being depressed is no longer an acceptable emotion, it's only ever a disease.

I remember when I was in grade school I thought of depression as something like being sad, but more intense.

Then, in middle school health classes they started talking of a disease called depression. That made sense, I could imagine a mental disorder where you'd feel depressed regardless of other factors, but it still seemed like depression could be an appropriate and acceptable reaction.

Now, (which isn't so much later so perhaps the only difference is that I'm more aware) I only ever hear "depression is a disease", something to be treated, medicated. I remember when my aunt passed away some well meaning relatives wondered if my uncle should look into medication. My opinion was that he just lost his wife and I saw no reason that a perfectly healthy person shouldn't be depressed under those circumstances.

I'm of two minds about this one. On the one hand I've seen what he's talking about first hand and where he talks about the ills of Corporate America cynically adopting an emerging philosophy (if it can be called that) I can agree. It can be a vehicle for suppression and conformity.

But on the other hand I've got a real beef with the more generalized attack of positive mental modeling as magical thinking. After reading the article I got the impression that the author was sneering at the idea that a person can improve their lot in life by managing how they think. And it brought to mind the parts of our culture (such as certain corners of the art world) that glamorize depression and negativity as a somehow more noble and authentic way of viewing the world. After coming from that kind of mindset-- one full of pride at being a realist-- I can say that it's somewhat comforting (you know the truth, others don't) but not very useful.

We seem to be at an interesting ontological crossroads when it comes to understanding what impact, if any, our thoughts have on our existence. On one extreme you have the airy philosophies often associated with the New Age community that argue that our thoughts can alter matter and probability to the finest degree-- changing every aspect of our lives, ridding us of disease, bringing us the perfect mate and giving us all the wealth we desire. On the other you have seemingly more sober philosophies often associated with the scientific community that argue that we're largely irrelevant biological machines subject to the statistical fluctuations of an uncaring universe. In that world not only our our thoughts impotent when it comes to the outside world but concepts like friendship, love and altruistic sacrifice are viewed as genetic and chemical constructs designed to further our own selfish ends.

It's a hell of a continuum.

While I admire any attempt at getting at what's really going on and prefer a more sober view of the world, my own personal experience has taught me that I am responsible for the perceptions and philosophies that I allow to flourish in my own mind. I may not be able to control the specific situation I find myself in, but I am responsible for how I choose to respond to it. That response may-- and sometimes does-- include anger, fear or even a kind of insulating detachment toward my own troubles or the troubles of the world. But I try to remember, even as I'm experiencing whatever state it is that I'm going through, that what I allow to run wild in my mind will ultimately have an affect on my actions (or lack thereof).

Years ago I had a stint in temp hell after the Dot Com crash of the late 90s. I'd gone from game programmer to data entry clerk. I had a chance to focus on all sorts of "how I got screwed" lines of thinking and I remember even back then using this philosophy of being responsible for my thinking as a kind of shield. Yes it was humiliating. Yes I should have been able to do better. Yes it was probably true that I was subject to the whims of elites who dicked around with the economy. But none of that was going to make me effective at handling the challenges I was facing at the moment.

During part of that time I worked at Bank of America, where you can probably say that we got a double dose of the corporate cheer crap in the weeks of training. We were "associates." We were supposed to ask how we could "delight" the customer. When the issue of fairness of fees came up the middle managers weren't really open to talking about it beyond it being "bank policy" (although the lower level trainers were).

But I refused to be a victim. I changed their embarrassing and idiotic phrase of "how may I delight you?" to "how can I provide you with excellent customer service?" and had the entire call center saying it (and much happier with it) in a few weeks. I adopted a tone that got my calls used as training examples. I used my tech skills to speed up my work and the work of my teammates. And when I couldn't get enough time to study for school I quit the job and accepted the consequences.

While the co-opting of positive thinking deserves criticism when it's used cynically, I think there's a hardcore segment of workers that could benefit from it. Among some of the trainees I worked with at BofA there was an almost fashionable cynicism-- and they seemed proud of having it. They weren't going to buy into being team players, they weren't going to learn new attitudes and they had no problem having a philosophy that looked out solely for number one.

You could say that they were miniature corporations unto themselves. And they seemed very surprised that the world did not cater to them.

I think there is a kind of professionalism that says that you leave your personal troubles at home, you do what you can to improve yourself and you do your job. If you don't like the conditions that give the work, you organize and impel your government to make changes. There's no requirement that you be grateful for where you are or what you are given, and I don't have any problem with covertly sabotaging the more egregious corporate pap that's out there. But you take responsibility for your response to your fate and try to make it better.

If it's talking about the philosophy that has so improved my life, the article is dead wrong when it says:

Quote:
Suddenly, abused and battered wives or children, the unemployed, the depressed and mentally ill, the illiterate, the lonely, those grieving for lost loved ones, those crushed by poverty, the terminally ill, those fighting with addictions, those suffering from trauma, those trapped in menial and poorly paid jobs, those whose homes are in foreclosure or who are filing for bankruptcy because they cannot pay their medical bills, are to blame for their negativity.

Any philosophy that promotes this is garbage, and I really think this is just the author's cynical interpretation. What an effective positive thinking philosophy should be telling people is that how they think has a powerful impact on what they do, and there are ways of thinking that are more comforting, more empowering and ultimately more useful than others. It is far more powerful to adopt a stance that, regardless of the situation, there is something a person can do to bring more good in their lives. That something may be an act of service for someone else. Or it may be an expression of art that defies the bleakness. It may be sharing a laugh or choosing to keep it together for the sake of others. Or it may be teaching someone else a more powerful way to look at the world.

But I think it's the cruelest lie to tell people that they're f*cked and that there's nothing they can do about it. I don't see any good that comes out of that way of viewing the world.

Quote: Original post by Wavinator
But on the other hand I've got a real beef with the more generalized attack of positive mental modeling as magical thinking. After reading the article I got the impression that the author was sneering at the idea that a person can improve their lot in life by managing how they think. And it brought to mind the parts of our culture (such as certain corners of the art world) that glamorize depression and negativity as a somehow more noble and authentic way of viewing the world. After coming from that kind of mindset-- one full of pride at being a realist-- I can say that it's somewhat comforting (you know the truth, others don't) but not very useful.

I think he's commenting on the culture of corporations and sneering at the notion that corporate bottom lines can always be raised if we only have the right attitude. That is magical thinking. And when this proves not to be true, it is we who are the problem. If the magic fails, it's not because there's no such thing as magic, it's because the employees didn't have faith in the magic.

Quote: Original post by Wavinator
While I admire any attempt at getting at what's really going on and prefer a more sober view of the world, my own personal experience has taught me that I am responsible for the perceptions and philosophies that I allow to flourish in my own mind. I may not be able to control the specific situation I find myself in, but I am responsible for how I choose to respond to it. That response may-- and sometimes does-- include anger, fear or even a kind of insulating detachment toward my own troubles or the troubles of the world. But I try to remember, even as I'm experiencing whatever state it is that I'm going through, that what I allow to run wild in my mind will ultimately have an affect on my actions (or lack thereof).

That's commendable of you, but did you arrive there on your own or was it forced upon you by a corporate consultant? In the OP I asked about forced cheerfulness. I wasn't making an issue of cheerfulness, or personal growth and psychological maturity.

Quote: Original post by Wavinator
While the co-opting of positive thinking deserves criticism when it's used cynically, I think there's a hardcore segment of workers that could benefit from it. Among some of the trainees I worked with at BofA there was an almost fashionable cynicism-- and they seemed proud of having it. They weren't going to buy into being team players, they weren't going to learn new attitudes and they had no problem having a philosophy that looked out solely for number one.

Maybe they had gotten burned before and were leery of pledging allegiance? Maybe they didn't see the point in pledging allegiance only to end up getting laid off later on through no fault of their own? Maybe their cynicism was the outward manifestation of a psychological defensive mechanism to protect against the possibility of losing their identity in the mass of conformity? Looking out solely for number one suggests a high degree of insecurity and alienation.

Quote: Original post by Wavinator
You could say that they were miniature corporations unto themselves. And they seemed very surprised that the world did not cater to them.

Would you say they were sociopaths? Would you say they had been conditioned their entire lives to think in ways beneficial to corporations? Not as servants but as leaders? Consider:

Quote:
...
Only about 1 to 3 percent of us are sociopaths-people who don't have normal human feelings and can easily go to sleep at night after having done horrific things. And of that 1 percent of sociopaths, there's probably only a fraction of a percent with a college education. And of that tiny fraction, there's an even tinier fraction that understands how business works, particularly within any specific industry.

Thus there is such a shortage of people who can run modern monopolistic, destructive corporations that stockholders have to pay millions to get them to work. And being sociopaths, they gladly take the money without any thought to its social consequences.
...
Profiling CEOs and Their Sociopathic Paychecks

Quote: Original post by Wavinator
I think there is a kind of professionalism that says that you leave your personal troubles at home, you do what you can to improve yourself and you do your job. If you don't like the conditions that give the work, you organize and impel your government to make changes. There's no requirement that you be grateful for where you are or what you are given, and I don't have any problem with covertly sabotaging the more egregious corporate pap that's out there. But you take responsibility for your response to your fate and try to make it better.

I agree with that kind of professionalism. However, if forced cheerfulness is the norm, then the operative logic is that if you don't like work conditions, the problem is with you, not with the work conditions. The problem is that you are a sad sack, a selfish cynic, a disruptor of harmony, a faithless blot gumming up the machinery of corporate happiness. And if you dare organize, well! We can't have commie pinkos stinking up our party can we???

Quote: Original post by Wavinator
If it's talking about the philosophy that has so improved my life, the article is dead wrong when it says:

Quote:
Suddenly, abused and battered wives or children, the unemployed, the depressed and mentally ill, the illiterate, the lonely, those grieving for lost loved ones, those crushed by poverty, the terminally ill, those fighting with addictions, those suffering from trauma, those trapped in menial and poorly paid jobs, those whose homes are in foreclosure or who are filing for bankruptcy because they cannot pay their medical bills, are to blame for their negativity.

Any philosophy that promotes this is garbage, and I really think this is just the author's cynical interpretation.

That's Calvinism updated and concretized. If wealth is proof of goodness, and if happy thoughts make one wealthy, then it follows that poverty is proof of evil, and the poor are to blame for their suffering because they must have been thinking negatively. See Protestant work ethic for more on this line of social analysis.

Quote: Original post by Wavinator
What an effective positive thinking philosophy should be telling people is that how they think has a powerful impact on what they do, and there are ways of thinking that are more comforting, more empowering and ultimately more useful than others. It is far more powerful to adopt a stance that, regardless of the situation, there is something a person can do to bring more good in their lives. That something may be an act of service for someone else. Or it may be an expression of art that defies the bleakness. It may be sharing a laugh or choosing to keep it together for the sake of others. Or it may be teaching someone else a more powerful way to look at the world.

Are you saying that it's appropriate for employers to indoctrinate employees with positive thinking philosophy? If so why not indoctrinate them with Christianity? With propserity theology in particular?

Quote: Original post by Wavinator
But I think it's the cruelest lie to tell people that they're f*cked and that there's nothing they can do about it. I don't see any good that comes out of that way of viewing the world.

Telling people they're f*cked and telling them they can't do anything about it are two different things. How is it that people come to recognize those things on their own? Do they realize both together or do they realize the first and then come to realize the second later after they've tried and failed to change their circumstances? If people aren't aware of their condition, can they change it for the better nonetheless? What if they have an inkling that something is wrong, but they don't know how to put the notion into words to ask others for help?




Here's more from Hedges' book: Book Excerpt: ‘Empire of Illusion’

Quote:
...
The working classes, comprising tens of millions of struggling Americans, are shut out of television’s gated community. They have become largely invisible. They are mocked, even as they are tantalized, by the lives of excess they watch on the screen in their living rooms. Almost none of us will ever attain these lives of wealth and power. Yet we are told that if we want it badly enough, if we believe sufficiently in ourselves, we too can have everything. We are left, when we cannot adopt these impossible lifestyles as our own, with feelings of inferiority and worthlessness. We have failed where others have succeeded.

We consume countless lies daily, false promises that if we spend more money, if we buy this brand or that product, if we vote for this candidate, we will be respected, envied, powerful, loved, and protected. The flamboyant lives of celebrities and the outrageous characters on television, movies, professional wrestling, and sensational talk shows are peddled to us, promising to fill up the emptiness in our own lives. Celebrity culture encourages everyone to think of themselves as potential celebrities, as possessing unique if unacknowledged gifts. It is, as Christopher Lasch diagnosed, a culture of narcissism. Faith in ourselves, in a world of make-believe, is more important than reality. Reality, in fact, is dismissed and shunned as an impediment to success, a form of negativity. The New Age mysticism and pop psychology of television personalities, evangelical pastors, along with the array of self-help bestsellers penned by motivational speakers, psychiatrists, and business tycoons, all peddle a fantasy. Reality is condemned in these popular belief systems as the work of Satan, as defeatist, as negativity or as inhibiting our inner essence and power. Those who question, those who doubt, those who are critical, those who are able to confront reality and who grasp the hollowness of celebrity culture, are shunned and condemned for their pessimism. The illusionists who shape our culture, and who profit from our incredulity, hold up the gilded cult of us. Popular expressions of religious belief, personal empowerment, corporatism, political participation, and self-definition argue that all of us are special, entitled, and unique. All of us, by tapping into our inner reserves of personal will and undiscovered talent, by visualizing what we want, can achieve, and deserve to achieve, happiness, fame, and success. This relentless message cuts across ideological lines. This mantra has seeped into every aspect of our lives. We are all entitled to everything.
...
Celebrities, who often come from humble backgrounds, are held up as proof that anyone, even we, can be adored by the world. These celebrities, like saints, are living proof that the impossible is always possible. Our fantasies of belonging, of fame, of success and of fulfillment, are projected onto celebrities. These fantasies are stoked by the legions of those who amplify the culture of illusion, who persuade us that the shadows are real. The juxtaposition of the impossible illusions inspired by celebrity culture and our “insignificant” individual achievements, however, eventually leads to frustration, anger, insecurity, and invalidation. It results, ironically, in a self-perpetuating cycle that drives the frustrated, alienated individual with even greater desperation and hunger away from reality, back toward the empty promises of those who seduce us, who tell us what we want to hear. We beg for more. We ingest these lies until our money runs out. And when we fall into despair we medicate ourselves, as if the happiness we have failed to find in the hollow game is our deficiency. And, of course, we are told it is.

Human beings become a commodity in a celebrity culture. They are objects, like consumer products. They have no intrinsic value. They must look fabulous and live on fabulous sets. Those who fail to meet the ideal are belittled and mocked. Friends and allies are to be used and betrayed during the climb to fame, power and wealth. And when they are no longer useful they are to be discarded. In Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury’s novel about a future dystopia, people spend most of the day watching giant television screens that show endless scenes of police chases and criminal apprehensions. Life, Bradbury understood, once it was packaged and filmed, became the most compelling form of entertainment.

The moral nihilism of celebrity culture is played out on reality television shows, most of which encourage a dark voyeurism into other people’s humiliation, pain, weakness, and betrayal. Education, building community, honesty, transparency, and sharing are qualities that will see you, in a gross perversion of democracy and morality, voted off a reality show. Fellow competitors for prize money and a chance for fleeting fame elect to “disappear” the unwanted. In the final credits of the reality show America’s Next Top Model, a picture of the woman expelled during the episode vanishes from the group portrait on the screen. Those cast aside become, at least to the television audience, non-persons. Life, these shows teach, is a brutal world of unadulterated competition. Life is about the personal humiliation of those who oppose us. Those who win are the best. Those who lose deserve to be erased. Compassion, competence, intelligence, and solidarity with others are forms of weakness. And those who do not achieve celebrity status, who do not win the prize money or make millions in Wall Street firms, deserve to lose. Those who are denigrated and ridiculed on reality television, often as they sob in front of the camera, are branded as failures. They are responsible for their rejection. They are deficient.
...
The cult of self dominates our cultural landscape. This cult shares within it the classic traits of psychopaths; superficial charm, grandiosity and self-importance; a need for constant stimulation, a penchant for lying, deception, and manipulation and the inability to feel remorse or guilt. This is, of course, the ethic promoted by corporations. It is the ethic of unfettered capitalism. It is the misguided belief that personal style and personal advancement, mistaken for individualism, are the same as democratic equality. In fact, personal style, defined by the commodities we buy or consume, has become a compensation for our loss of democratic equality. We have a right, in the cult of the self, to get whatever we desire. We can do anything, even belittle and destroy those around us, including our friends, to make money, to be happy, and to become famous. Once fame and wealth are achieved, they become their own justification, their own morality. How one gets there is irrelevant. Once you get there, those questions are no longer asked.

It is this perverted ethic that gave us Wall Street bankers and investment houses that willfully trashed the nation’s economy, stole money from tens of millions of small shareholders who had bought stock in these corporations for retirement or college. The heads of these corporations, like the winners on a reality television program who lied and manipulated others to succeed, walked away with hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses and compensation. In his masterful essay “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,” Walter Benjamin wrote: “The cult of the movie star, fostered by the money of the film industry, preserves not the unique aura of the person but the ‘spell of the personality,’ the phony spell of a commodity.”
...
Celebrities are skillfully used by their handlers and the media to compensate for the increasingly degraded and regimented existences that most of us endure in a commodity culture. Celebrities tell us we can have our revenge. We can triumph. We can, one day, get back at the world that has belittled and abused us. It happens in the ring. It happens on television. It happens in the movies. It happens in the narrative of the Christian Right. It happens in pornography. It happens in the self-help manuals and on reality television. But it almost never happens in reality.

Celebrity is the vehicle used by a corporate society to sell us these branded commodities, most of which we do not need. Celebrities humanize commercial commodities. They present the familiar and comforting face of the corporate state. Supermodel Paulina Porizkova, on an episode of America’s Next Top Model, gushes to a group of aspiring young models, “Our job as models is to sell.” But they peddle a fake intimacy and a fantasy. The commercial “personalizing” of the world involves oversimplification, distraction, and gross distortion. “We sink further into a dream of an unconsciously intimate world in which not only may a cat look at a king but a king is really a cat underneath, and all the great power-figures Honest Joes at heart,” Richard Hoggart warned in The Uses of Literacy. We do not learn more about Barack Obama by knowing what dog he has bought for his daughters or if he still smokes. This personalized trivia, passed off as news, diverts us from reality.
...
Celebrities have fame free of responsibility. The fame of celebrities, wrote Mills, disguises those who possess true power: corporations and the oligarchic elite. Magical thinking is the currency not only of celebrity culture, but of totalitarian culture. And as we sink into an economic and political morass, we are still controlled, manipulated and distracted by the celluloid shadows on the dark wall of Plato’s cave. The fantasy of celebrity culture is not designed simply to entertain. It is designed to keep us from fighting back.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Mao and Stalin used the same language of harmony and strength through the collective, the same love of spectacles and slogans, the same coercive power of groups and state propaganda, to enslave and impoverish millions of their citizens.

The most outrage example - Nasi Germany-was skept.It doesn't seems me accident[smile]

Quote:
We were runnin so fast til we came to the McDonalds where I used to work
We walked up to the drive thru and gave my boss a jerk
Said, "give us all your money and three Big Macs to go
And suck on this you weasel, we're goin to Mexico"
-- "Mexico", Beck

Thanks God- we don't know English,otherwise popularity of such songs would be 10x less...

[Edited by - Krokhin on August 6, 2009 6:48:32 AM]