Toys, Cultural Transmission, and Recruitment

We like to think that a protective barrier separates children from society. Kids live in a bubble. They have special books and toys and television programs, all of which present them with a sanitized version of the world. We don't like to think about the ways in which the cultural elements of children's worlds are saturated with "outside" social forces of nationalism, imperialism, and capitalism.

Sometimes it is obvious. Feminists have done a fine job critiquing the image of womanhood and the female body promoted by Barbie dolls. Disney has been duly criticized for its patriarchal values and often explicit racism. Fads such as pogs (or bottle caps) have really laid bare the money-making schemes that, with the help of creative marketing and television/movie product integrations, have the power to shape children's behavior.

Then there are the still obvious but less uniformly accepted social/political implications of youth culture. There are endless debates about the harms of Gangsta Rap and violent movies and video games. We just had another round of this after the tragic shooting in Sandy Hook. Some people say, "It's no wonder we have all these mass shootings. Look at the games young people are playing, and the movies they are watching." And then of course others fire back with either the less persuasive argument that "kids really don't take the violence seriously and exposure to video games/movies alone doesn't predict whether any particular person will become a mass murder" (and then they typically blame the news media, because, as we all know, there is no greater young adult influence than the news) - or the slightly more convincing but nonetheless fallacious argument that "other countries have violent video games and they don't have these mass shootings.... ipso facto, there is absolutely no relationship between violence embedded in cultural artifacts and real, enacted violence."

Any kind of culture - whether it is adult culture, teenage culture, children's culture - penetrates individual consciousness and shapes behavior. If your argument is premised on culture being in any way inconsequential, then you are clearly wrong. Every encounter with a cultural production provides us with images, vocabulary, and morally charged narrative, which together compose a framework for interpreting, valuing, and talking about the world. To put it crudely: the images, words, and narratives that we are presented through cultural media determine what we believe and how we perceive the world around us.

So, for example, if one is consistently, from childhood, being presented with variations on the Good vs. Evil narrative, and if violence is perpetually being portrayed as the only effective means for Good to triumph over Evil (add in some patriotic symbols, perhaps, for greater emotional effect), then violence will likely occupy an ambiguous position within one's moral framework, making it easier to justify particular violent acts. On a more sensory level, the abundance of everyday play that involves acts of violence (from toy water guns to graphically violent video games), which are sanitized to remove both the physical gore and the psychological/moral quandaries associated with brutality, serves to normalize and trivialize violence. This can numb one to the real effects of violence and also allow an easier transition to actual brutality.

Meanwhile, as people continue to debate these sorts of issues, a third (but not unrelated) consideration lurks in the background. Are the purveyors of youth culture simply trying to make money, or is any active, purposeful transmission of values taking place? (We have agreed that some transmission of values is taking place; the question here is to what degree it is intended.) For example, there is a striking parallel between the attitudes and behaviors indigenous to team sporting events (from school sports to professional leagues) and those that are characteristic of nationalism. It is clear that the cultivation of these dispositions early in life prepares children to be receptive to nationalist ideology. Was that ever planned, and/or is anyone currently trying to maximize its political potential?

Similarly, we may never know whether Disney intended to reinforce racist attitudes or whether Mattel tried to promote a particular image of an ideal female body. We do know about all the various ways in which the makers of toys, games, and tv shows try very intently to promote the development of different cognitive skills (we now even have Goldiblocks to encourage girls' interest in engineering) - but this is not only an uncontroversial goal, but more importantly, it is a great marketing ploy.

What about the violence? It is so pervasive in youth culture... does it serve any purpose other than its supposedly inherent entertainment value? I think it is clear that the processes of normalization and desensitization are supremely useful to the maintenance of a social order that requires violence as its modus operandi. Plenty of movies and video games have explicitly defended and glorified courses of action taken by the United States. More than this though, the military has seen the motor coordination skills that are cultivated by video games as a valuable resource in the operation of drone technology. They have a keen interest in video game competitions and view the events as recruiting grounds. How innocent, then, are video games when the military seriously considers them as a preparatory stage to real warfare?

We all, generally, feel a need to brainwash children. Usually this is framed in terms of socialization, education, and instilling values. Regardless, though, we still see children as the blank slates that we can form to our liking. The problem is that, through mass-produced cultural productions, multiple interests are trying to shape any given child, and we hardly know who or what they are.

The Limits of Comedy

Every so often a comedian will say something really racist or sexist or homophobic or in some other way controversial (for some reason this usually tends to occur at the Laugh Factory) and it creates a huge media buzz. The resulting discussion is the same every time and reveals that there is a gaping chasm regarding what people consider to be acceptable territory for comedians. For those who are wondering, yes, this post was prompted by Tosh’s rape joke.

So, it always turns out that some people are totally offended, while others insist that nothing should be off limits. Personally (and from a partially amateurish social scientific point of view), I do think that the exploration of societal boundaries is a useful function that comedy can perform. Comedy provides a useful means of juxtaposing the expected/stereotypical/acceptable with the unexpected/transgressive/taboo, as well as demonstrating the fuzziness, instability, and arbitrariness of the boundaries and categories we construct. In short, comedy reveals all the intricacies of social life that normally exist below the level of conscious awareness.

But there are other types of comedy that do not perform this function. For example, certain forms of humor serve the purpose of making people feel better about themselves at the expense of others (it may be worthwhile to note, in that regard, that the middle school boys who taunted their bus monitor were inspired by their experiences watching Tosh.0 and their desire to get on the show).  This type of comedy includes the brand of “stupid humor” that portrays fictional characters acting unrealistically idiotic, to satisfy people’s pleasure in feeling superior to someone less intelligent.

[I should add that not every portrayal of stupidity falls into this category. For example, the Dylan character on Modern Family is used partially to mock the stereotypical suburban teenage boy and to highlight the disparity between the parents’ expectations for their daughter and the reality of her choices; furthermore, an exchange such as –

Father: I mean, it's the tux I got married in so it's double breasted.
Dylan: Perfect. So am I.

– also serves as a clever linguistic quip.]

Then there is the brand of humor that is based on a desire to liberate oneself from any social norms and say everything that normally goes unspoken (the Saying Poop for the Sake of Saying Poop brand of humor). Some (but not all) of the practitioners of this form of humor argue that boundaries should not exist, and comedians must have free rein. Every time a controversy occurs, these people insist that anyone who is “too sensitive” should not go to comedy clubs, and that comedians can say whatever they want – because, after all, “it’s just comedy.”

Despite all my radical anarchist/antiestablishment tendencies, even I see the necessity of some social norms. Certain boundaries exist because they protect oppressed populations. In particular, certain limits on discourse are necessary to erode assumptions that specific types of people are inferior to others. For example, if it were not taboo to say (overtly) that black people are less intelligent, then there would certainly be more people who believe such nonsense actually expressing it openly, and these open affirmations of belief would reinforce one another, further entrenching racism in the collective conscious of society. To those who doubt the power of the Word, I would point out that the prevalence and circulation patterns of discourse always affect social reality, and that is why efforts at social control always begin with discourse (propaganda). I should also point out that I am NOT arguing that: 1) Social norms require legal enforcement; or 2) We can make problems go away simply by not talking about them. My claim is simply that discourse – any kind of discourse – has social consequences, and therefore, limitations on discourse may be useful in mitigating (though not necessarily eradicating) certain negative consequences for oppressed groups.

I believe that only the first form of humor that I described above is socially productive. I think the second lacks insight and can be personally damaging in many cases. And the third tends to be employed (by coincidence and not necessity) by comedians who are ultimately unable to think beyond commonplace assumptions. These comedians, in their quest to eradicate boundaries, are not attempting to challenge the social order or dominant ideologies, but merely fighting for their ability to express already hegemonic ideas (about race, gender, sexuality) in the crudest possible terms.

I also want to respond to the common argument that these controversies are the fault of people who are too easily offended. For example, in Louis C.K.’s odd and inconsistent reaction to the Tosh/rape controversy on the Daily Show, he made the “joke” that “feminists don’t have a sense of humor.” There are a couple of reasons why I don’t find this funny. Number one is that, from a purely comedic standpoint, lines get progressively less funny the more they are repeated and I have heard this one far too many times. But more importantly, this “joke” about feminists is generally used to undermine the legitimacy of their claims. It is a license to not take feminists seriously. It is also a power-trip. What angered me most was when Louis C.K. said, “Okay, we’ve listened to you. Now shut the f*** up.” It reminds me of being at work, when I compile reams of data and logical arguments to try to influence courses of action within my department.... and I’m told, in effect: “Okay, we’ve listened to you. Now shut the f*** up.” The fact is this: Louis C.K. is not only absolutely wrong, but is also perpetuating gender stereotypes, when he says that all women want is for someone to listen to them. No. What feminists (assuming, for the moment, that they are all the same) want is to be taken seriously, to have a seat at the table, to participate in social decision-making, to enact change. Who gives a crap about listening; what about an end to discrimination, stereotyping, and violence?

I think what I hate most about the “feminists don’t have a sense of humor” bit is the assumption that it is not possible to simultaneously care about things and have a sense of humor. Although I am quite a politically correct person, I have a sense of humor that constantly throws people for a loop. The faulty assumption is a case of boundary-phobes seeing things in black/white, and not recognizing the existence of people who both appreciate boundaries and like to explore them as well (in fact, it is impossible to explore something that is being destroyed). For example, to those who say my disapproval of Tosh’s joke indicates my lack of a sense of humor... would I automatically get upset about any joke that mentions rape in any context whatsoever? No! (For example.) But do I believe that there are inappropriate contexts and executions of rape jokes? Sure.

The fact of the matter is, I don’t see any reason why comedians should be granted complete immunity. Every social actor bears responsibility for the social implications of their work. The idea that the world of comedy operates by different rules is, to me, a cop out answer.

The Recording Industry and the Monopoly on Music

I have been a long-time opponent of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). Around the time they began to fight against file-sharing, and well before I was able to formulate my thoughts in a very theoretical way, I was already on my crusade. Granted, my crusade has consisted mostly of being very angry, and occasionally wearing an anti-RIAA t-shirt.

Now, of course, I can pinpoint exactly where I take principled issue with the Recording Industry:

1. No one brings entirely new things into existence, and creativity depends on a free flow of ideas.
2. Music is a social, not an individual, phenomenon.
3. The Recording Industry reinforces social boundaries.
4. The Recording Industry controls the availability of music and attempts to manipulate trends and tastes

To expand on each point….

1. See post about intellectual property. But I also want to ask, why would anyone think that no one would have any incentive to create good music if not guaranteed millions of dollars in return? Have there not been troubadores, for pretty much all of human existence, willing to live meal by meal and entertaining without any expected rate of return? Do not many people choose to be musicians knowing very well that they will probably not make much money? This is the music I WANT to hear.

2. Historically, music has been created for communal purposes: special music for rituals and rites of passage; entertainment for social gatherings and dances; songs to memorialize group history and lore; songs for travel. Of course, everyone riffs off of ideas already in existence (see point number one) and widespread recycling of popular melodies has been more of the norm than the aberration. Music is very often performed with ensembles and not infrequently through collaborative improvisation. And music still plays a vital role at parties, weddings, sporting events, public venues, religious services, civic ceremonies, holiday celebrations, and is incorporated into pretty much all nonprint media forms. Now, I do not mean to be ahistorical and absolutist and suggest that the nature and function of music can never change. But the changes that have occurred have been for the sole purpose of profit. More importantly, since changes have occurred very unevenly, it is impossible to enforce copyright law consistently, and of course the punishment seems to far FAR outweigh the "crime."  Why should we consider akin to stealing a diamond something that has been so entwined with social life for all of human history?

3. It is sometimes claimed that “rock ‘n roll” finally erased racial boundaries – was the first melding of African-American and white American musical traditions. Setting aside the inaccuracy of the latter claim, I tend to get very annoyed by this utter nonsense. The boundaries were never erased. The recording industry, through its labeling and marketing techniques, has left them quite intact, if not further solidified them. The creation of charts, the organization of record stores, and the development of radio formats all depend on Recording Industry categories, which are wholly inflected with race and gender. The original term for “R&B” (the Industry’s euphemism for “black music”) was originally “race music.” At some point down the line it became not so “nice” to be that explicit, but the racial undertones remained. For example, in the 60s they felt the need to distinguish “blue-eyed soul” from plain old “soul,” in an effort, I suppose, to avoid racial mixing within a single category. I find it interesting that Hip-hop and R&B – two completely distinct genres – often appear together as Hip-Hop/R&B. The important thing is, black music is black music. On that note, I also found it interesting that Eminem (one of a scant few popular white rappers) was always played on my area rock stations, the sole form of hip-hop ever played by those formats. And then there is gender. Usually female musicians are confined to the sugary center of the industry – pop music. Even to the small extent that they have seeped into the domain of rock, they tend to be relegated to the singer role. No playing any complicated instruments for women! When female groups became popular in the rock ‘n roll era (and the new, edgy rock ‘n roll music was almost exclusively male at the beginning) they too were separated into their own marked category: the “girl group” genre. In an opposite move, the term “boy band” became popular to describe all-male groups who performed a style of music that was becoming increasingly “feminized.” Beyond race and gender, the music industry also reinforces class boundaries… but I feel this paragraph is long enough already.

4. The industry’s control over the circulation and availability of music is, I think, one of its most heinous crimes. Obviously they make it difficult for new and/or unconventional artists to “break through,” while saturating our airwaves with a couple of hand-picked photogenic performers.  Fortunately, the internet has been undermining that aspect of the Industry’s control, though only very weakly. The Industry also determines what gets played, and in what proportions, by pretty much every radio station in the country. Stations used to have a lot of independence. Not anymore. This has greatly reduced the variety of music being played. The same tired old stuff gets played ad nauseum. The Industry, taking a cue perhaps from the fashion industry, has tried many times to create new “scenes” and genres. It is constantly trying to fabricate and capitalize on “the next big thing.” (As much as individual artists try vainly to protest that they “just play rock ‘n roll man.”) They discover The Darkness and wet their pants over the “Hair Metal Revival” which certainly must follow (this, of course, being an example of utter failure). Above all else: they never EVER pass up an opportunity to exploit the passions of pre-teens…. The perennial cash cow.

The bottom line is, the Recording Industry was developed to monopolize and control. I’d rather it never existed.

Individualism: Cultural Trait or Political Economic Necessity?

Much has been made out of concept of Western Individualism versus Eastern Collectivism. Usually, these are framed as existential cultural traits: there is something particularly European about individualism, and something particularly …. non-European…. about collectivism. European individualism is used as an explanation for their economic and political “achievements” (colonization included).

Of course, our notions of “culture” were forged in a colonial context, and any scheme that pits people of European ancestry (people of color in the United States are generally deemed “collectivist” as well) against everyone else, as an undifferentiated whole, should be suspect. As a general rule of thumb, any binary which places people of European ancestry on one side of a divide and everyone else on the other is a product of the discourses that constitute (actively and passively) “modernity.”

What the culturalist perspective construes as a personality trait or an attitude, actually derives from legal practices that were specifically developed to support capitalist relations of production. Thus, it was an intentional arrangement, subject to very specific power interests. While other relations of production are premised on the products of labor (and surpluses may be appropriated from collectives, including families), under capitalism, labor itself is commoditized and collective action is coordinated from the “top” (all other lateral relationships, like unionization, are discouraged). Furthermore, private ownership of land and other means of production is necessary to ensure the limits to competition that capitalism requires. In this environment, a legal system that privileges private ownership and contracts between individual agents is indispensible. The “individual” is the linchpin that holds it all together.

It is in a capitalist’s interest that people are not able to satisfy their needs on their own. Instead, people are reliant upon an endless number of commodities. They are separated (“alienated” in Marx’s terms) from the products of their own labor, and must procure their needs from unknown (in terms of the human labor) sources. Furthermore, as the production process becomes finely segmented, to the extent that each laborer is only involved with a fraction of the overall process, collective action toward a common goal is limited. In essence, under capitalism, the productive process consists of relationships that are more structural than interactional. People inhabit roles in which, for the sake of efficiency, they are interchangeable with others. The “individual” as a legal, political, and economic entity is a function of the role-based nature of capitalist relations of production. One might say that the “individual” is one of the “technologies” (and don’t humans often function as machines?) created by capitalism.

Still, one must be careful not to overstate the divide between individualism and collectivism. One characteristic of the project of “modernity” along with its concomitant ideology of progress, is the tendency to turn products of capitalism (in themselves neutral, potentially even harmful) into evidence of progress, and then to place them on one side of a great modern-premodern divide, where they become inextricably associated with the inhabitants of the “modern” side of the chasm: white, middle/upper class, straight males. (Notice how even Western women are supposed to be more collectivist in nature, while the image of the rugged individualist is invariably male.)

Since a certain sort of codified individualism was created by the forces of capitalism, individualism is hence seen as inherently European, as well as a mark of European progress.

Muslims and Racism

Although racism of all varieties obviously still abounds, it appears that Islamophobia is currently the one form that is socially acceptable to express openly. Once again, as I have said numerous times, I do not think the "who is more oppressed?" game is very productive. Thus, my concern in this post is more the way in which racism is explicitly (as opposed to covertly) part of public rhetoric.

The other day I was talking to an older woman, and the subject of the state of Michigan came up. She said, "Oh, they have a lot of problems" (I expected her to say "with the economy" or " with unemployment" or "with foreclosures) "... they have all those Muslims." She was referring to the city of Dearborn, Michigan - a suburb of Detroit - which has the largest Arabic population outside of the Middle East. I don't think this woman realized that many of these people of Arabic descent are Christian, not Muslim. (Lebanese Christians, who came to work in Ford's factory, provided the original pull of Middle Easterners to the area.) I politely explained that Dearborn is a very nice community - no major "problems" of which I am aware, expecially compared to those facing Detroit.

I don't think this woman would have been very comfortable making a similar comment about African Americans (though Detroit is largely African American, and there has been racial tensions along black-white lines for decades). Yet, she did not hesitate in the slightest about making a "Muslim" comment.

Somehow, the fact that some Muslims have been involved with terrorism makes it "valid," in many people's opinion, to speak critically about Islam and to treat Muslims/Arabs/Middle Easterners differently. Nevermind the fact that "Islamic terrorism" (a problematic term in itself) only represents a tiny percentage of all terrorism in the U.S., or the more obvious fact that the vast, vast majoriy of Muslims do not have anything to do with terrorism.

This reasoning is not new: for example, when we were at war with Japan, overt racism and discrimination against Japanese Americans was suddenly trendy. Though Islamophobia definitely is an interesting case, in that it involves the conflation of race, nationality, and religion. Anyone can claim that they are not racist, but just have problems with the (supposed) tenants of the religion. This demonstrates the way in which "cultural reasoning" is often used as a more "progressive" sounding stand-in for racial reasoning (I expect to write a more detailed post about this topic sometime soon). Put plain and simply, rhetoric about "cultural difference" is often just thinly veiled racism.

In the case of Arabs/Muslims/Middle Easterners, "cultural difference" is a totally inappropriate framework in which to understand terrorism. Arabs, Muslims, and Middle Easterns have all been subject in different ways to colonial rule, neocolonial manipulation, capitalist exploitation, and racism of the "Orientalist" variety. This is the framework in which to understand terrorism. To avoid repeating myself, here are some links to previous posts on the subject:  MENA Dictatorships and Colonialism; The Death of Osama Bin Laden; Religion and Colonialism in MENA.

(And why is it that the "collateral damage" caused by U.S. military interventions in the MENA region is not considered "terrorism"?)

This just goes to show that, despite all the "progressive" trends that have occured throughout the past couple of centuries, we have not gotten past the point of socially acceptible racism.

The Role of Education in a Capitalist Society

It is not easy to answer the question, "What is the purpose of education?"  There are so many competing ideas about what education should be.  Furthermore, the history of the development of the institutional apparatus that has become the modern education system is incredibly complex.  However, from a historical materialist perspective, neither the "should" nor the "was" directly explain what is.  The past may provide the materials, and ideology may affect the nuances, but only current conditions (relationships and structures) can account for the role that education actually plays in late capitalist society.

Perhaps the most important and most obvious use of education is its provision of vocational training. Particularly in late capitalist society, many jobs require complex skill sets.  The existence of public and private educational systems, as opposed to apprenticeship and other forms of on-the-job training, shifts the cost of training from the employer to the employee (either directly via private institutions or indirectly through the tax-funded public school system).  Thus, regardless of whether they are public or private, educational institutions serve as a means of reducing labor costs.  Public education may be viewed as a subsidy of the cost of labor.

The second most salient role of education is as a means of "indoctrination," or, in my own preferred terms, transmission of ideology.  Knowledge is not neutral. Human knowledge is never a transparent reflection of reality.  One can only make sense of the world by organizing it according to some framework for interpretation.  In the process of transmitting knowledge, one must also impart and reinforce a particular interpretive framework (ideology).  Educational institutions, in concert with the media, inculcate members of society with ideological frameworks that legitimize, even romanticize, the social order:  most notably social contract ideology, neoliberal ideology, the ideology of progress... the idea that capitalism = free markets = AWESOMENESS.  Or democracy = liberty = SO GREAT I COULD KILL PEOPLE FOR IT.

But not only is this ideological management a means of generating consent, it also places limits (by reducing variability and making certain things taken for granted) on the diversity of beliefs and opinions held by a large portion of the population.  During the early 20th century, amidst rising tides of immigration and heightened class conscious, education was overtly used for "assimilation."  Although the use of this term in reference to education has waned, the assimilative role of education persists.  Assimilation is more powerful than consent.  A large body of shared beliefs and perspectives makes the general population much easier to manipulate and control.  For example, when something new arises, novel arguments can be fashioned from the communal knowledge base which serve to garner new types of consent.

Another important, though slightly more incidental, effect of formal education is its contribution to the social division of labor.  Some argue this is THE function of education.  However, I believe that social reproduction can occur in other ways, and that the formal education system just arbitrarily happens to also be useful for these purposes.  The idea here is that the educational system "resonates" with upper/middle-class culture (as that is who maintains the system).  This causes lower status students to become alienated, achieve less, and settle for lower skilled, lower paying jobs, while more privileged students, already primed for schooling, acquire a body of "symbolic capital" (see Pierre Bourdieu), including tastes, manners of speaking, literary/artistic knowledge, etc. that marks them as members of "higher society" and gives them access to strategic connections, better paying jobs, and political influence.  And it appears that all of the latter are acquired through merit (educational achievement) rather than inherited status.

An additional ancillary benefit of education is that it has produced an entire economic sector which can be mined and exploited by capitalist interests (that is why businesses have involved themselves more with education after the crisis of overproduction set in).  It also allows both parents to pursue employment outside of the home while their children are cared for during the day.

Of course, others involved in the educational system have contributed to the particular form it has taken, the manifold details of its existence, in the service of goals that are not actually forwarded by education.  Those goals include the use of education

-as preparation for democratic citizenship
-as a means of nurturing the holistic development of each child
-as a mechanism for eliminating social inequalities (if educational achievement gaps can be closed, then all children will have the opportunity to "lift themselves out of poverty")
-as a tool for inciting awareness of social problems along with development of critical thinking skills (activist educational researchers encourage students of oppressed groups to learn more about why they are oppressed so that they can challenge the system)

The first two are, in my opinion, too vaguely defined to ever be attainable.  The third is impossible because achievement gaps are only a shadowy effect of the brute conditions of poverty, and cannot serve as a point of entry for such deeply pervasive structural problems.  The fourth is not a totally unrealistic goal.  However, the forces that are aligned in opposition to such projects seem insurmountable.  And so far the system has not been challenged.  Thus, while these four goals have had some influence on the course that modern education has taken, they do not explain its actual material relationships to other institutions and social processes.

Bearing all of this in mind, I will attempt in the next series of posts to describe some pivotal moments of the last few decades of educational history.