I totally think it is mixture of both. What our society "looks like" is more Huxleyan, seemingly motivated by pleasure to be sure. However, we're still motivated by fear, a la "the war on terror" and how we were willing to sacrifice our own freedoms (e.g. The Patriot Act) so we could be safe, and maybe going back, free to be trivial amusement seekers. I think both books and authors were very either/or oriented, when society has evolved in a more both/and manner. That would have been very hard to have predicted from mindsets still firmly ensconced in modernity.
Blake Huggins
· 4 months ago
That's a good way of putting it. I think that maybe we could even say that the Huxleyan structure of our society -- the motivation of pleasure and inundation of information from every angle and on every possible frequency, etc. -- creates an environment in which Orwellian suppression can freely occur. We're too preoccupied with "everything else" to notice or care at times.
Drew Tatusko
· 4 months ago
what i think is true is that a surplus of choice results in irrational behavior. this has been researched over and over by behavioral economists in the past decade or so.
what i was pondering the other day as i was waiting to get a haircut was that i think americans honestly get some sort of joissance out of the permission and even reinforcement of irrational thinking our economy gives us. in fact, producers of good and services want us to be as irrational as a slot player in a casino. irrational thinking means that people will rely more on credit, save less, and spent more on things they don't need. they will get more channels, more tabloids, take fox news and others to be the truth and all the while act like a big magnet for advertising and more consumption possibilities.
heidegger would call this "the standing reserve" that our technocracy has created. he did not discuss the economic impact of this, but it seems that this is where his concept is best served.
Blake Huggins
· 4 months ago
I'd say we get a lot of joissance out of it. And the ultimate object of our desire here, at least as far as I can tell, is not the things themselves, though we tend to think that way in our experience, but the excess and abstraction of "more" -- more tabloids, more channels, more news, more reality TV, more information. We get off on the act of consumption itself, not necessarily the things which only give momentary pleasure until we realize we need more in order to satisfy the elusive Thing, to put it in Lacanian terms.
What I have to watch out for is how I fall into that economy even when in my intellectual and academic pursuits when I think I'm avoiding it. Do I really need that book or is that I need more books to satisfy my desire. And so on.
Collin Moody
· 4 months ago
I think that intellectuals especially fall into extreme joissance in ideas and searching after books and knowledge. It's easier to unknowingly fall into abstract unfulfilled enjoyment. I don't have much to add though except to agree wholeheartedly because that is the very thing that motivates my pursuits 85% of the time.
Drew Tatusko
· 4 months ago
i look at my goal of healing my debt over the next five years and realize how duped i was. the moment you buy from wal-mart you are contributing to someone's exploitation. capitalism must exploit. the most expensive part of any operation is labor. thus, if you try to cut your overhead by cutting labor (logical move) someone must pay the price in terms of work for a lower price. sweat shops have been the calling cry. but health care and fringe benefits are another sacrifice. it's horrid the levels of irrationality we succumb just to get a feeling of satisfaction that we got the kind of show or shampoo we "really" wanted. the question is how to get out of something that sucks us in like water to a fish.... again, we are heidegger's standing reserve. http://religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?titl...
Blake Huggins
· 4 months ago
I need to read more about Heidegger's standing reserve. I haven't come across it yet, but it sounds intriguing.
Oh, and you have an article on religion online. I'm jealous!
Jonathan Brink
· 4 months ago
Perhaps the answer shifts from time to time. Orwell's version appears during WW2. Huxley's version appears right now. But it could easily shift back to Orwell's version.
All Comments
what i was pondering the other day as i was waiting to get a haircut was that i think americans honestly get some sort of joissance out of the permission and even reinforcement of irrational thinking our economy gives us. in fact, producers of good and services want us to be as irrational as a slot player in a casino. irrational thinking means that people will rely more on credit, save less, and spent more on things they don't need. they will get more channels, more tabloids, take fox news and others to be the truth and all the while act like a big magnet for advertising and more consumption possibilities.
heidegger would call this "the standing reserve" that our technocracy has created. he did not discuss the economic impact of this, but it seems that this is where his concept is best served.
What I have to watch out for is how I fall into that economy even when in my intellectual and academic pursuits when I think I'm avoiding it. Do I really need that book or is that I need more books to satisfy my desire. And so on.
Oh, and you have an article on religion online. I'm jealous!