questions worth asking

This book sounds very interesting, if a little pessimistic. But it's attack on alternative forms of consumption is quite refreshing. Again this is a book I will have to read (like the DIY culture one), but I think the question of whether any of the ethical/radical/alternative forms of consumption have any validity or are simply forms of social distinction is interesting. On the one hand it seems to posit capitalism as a complete and bounded system and assumes that truly ethical behaviour is antithetical to any status seeking motivations.

This second point is rather stupid, as their book itself could be construed as a piece of status-seeking 'we're better than you' type hype and secondly we'd have to dispense with the great ethically minded heroes of the past as attention seeking hypocrites - goodbye Jesus, Martin Luther, Martin Luther King & co, they were clearly no better than the latest batch of Big Brother contestants.

The first point is slightly harder to discredit, capitalism seems to be everywhere, although it does depend what is meant by capitalism in this case. Selling things doesn't equal capitalist behvaiour per se. Human beings have probably always sold things, commodities are nothing new. Plus while economic institutions may apply free market rules literally (although G8 might change that a little, it appears to be an exception rather than a rule and comes with lots of rather dodgy caveats apparently) most businesses that participate in capitalism are less strict in their adherence (see profits being 'invested' in shareholders offshore accounts rather than business improvements).

What it does bring into question is: precisely what are alternative consumer practices doing to actually make the world a better place, and more pertinently to this blog does buying some obscure new wave album from the late 70s qualify for truly alternative behaviour or just a classic example of social distinction?

The new 'sensibility'?

"SHE: — I have zero confidence in those procedures as you call them; they are much too nice; too pacific; there is no conflict any more. Whenever there is a dispute, we gather around the table, we talk, and we reach a conclusion. It is now about governance, and that’s the final emasculation of politics. No teeth. No guts. No balls."

I think this could be the debate of the 21st century. Domestically, at least, the preference for a strong ideological stance seems to have withered away, and re-emerged on the fringes as UKIP or the BNP, groups whose ideologies are overly simple and anachronistic. In some ways HE is right because, the kind of people involved in these groups have reduced something very complex to a simple, single issue. There undoubtedly is a danger to the adherence to a single, all powerful Truth. But that doesn't mean it can't be useful to at least toy with the idea so long as it doesn't become dogmatic.

I think it's fair to say that we, of the liberal leanings, tend to be sceptical of unambiguous claims, we prefer 'points of view', 'perspectives' and when we summon up some passion we focus it on a band or a film, something apolitical and safe, the reason we love it comes down to personal taste and preference, it needn't be reflective of our overall political standpoint. And if it comes to that, we try to skirt the issue...

This is just as true of the current alternative mindset (I'll explain what I think this is in another post). There seems to be a love of all things twee and cutesy, whether it's Joanna Newsom or fairy cakes or pixie ears. I'll admit I'm a big fan of the middle one, and I'm sure there could be a discussion of the political economy of traditional recipes and cooking, but this side of things tends to remain in silence, explicitly politicising these issues seems to be taboo for the alternative. There is a whiff of the 18th century notion of sensibility about this stance - of compassionate emotion that appears to be outwardly directed but is actually a self-gratifying sense of one's own goodness...