In this paper, I will provide a critique of the American values centering around the issues involving individualism and materialism. To begin with, its merits notwithstanding, individualism falls short of comprehending the multifaceted processes in which the individual is shaping and, at the same ti...
In this paper, I will provide a critique of the American values centering around the issues involving individualism and materialism. To begin with, its merits notwithstanding, individualism falls short of comprehending the multifaceted processes in which the individual is shaping and, at the same time, shaped by history and society. In juxtaposition to the subject enshrined by individualism, standing "above and beyond" history and society, the subject is the ensemble of social relations as Marx would have it. The subject is not a pre-given guarantee but a peculiar constituent which constitutes and is constituted by history and society. Furthermore, as is pointed out by many postmodern thinkers, the subject is not a monolithic unity but a disruptive complexity; not a concentric homogeneity but a decentered heterogeneity. This line of thinking makes it possible to conceive of a subject that is constantly being articulated anew, the resulting construction of which has no center. The limitations of individualism that strips the subject of its socio-historical context are clearly shown in the cultural explanations of poverty in the United States. This theory, often called the "culture of poverty," is inseparably intertwined with American individualism. My argument is that, by attributing the plight of the poor to the norms, values, and beliefs the poor themselves develop, the culture of poverty makes invisible the structure of society for poverty, just as individualism marginalizes and excludes the social construction of the subject. The culture of poverty, thus, entices the criticism that it blames the victim and perpetuates social inequality by justifying the status quo. In like fashion, I would argue that the best criticism of materialism in general and of American materialism in particular can be found in the explications of commodity fetishism and reification process. Capitalism involves the commodification which turns every element within its system into a commodity including human being and human relations. Reification refers to this extensive and intensive commodification process in capitalism. It is within this context that the so-called globalization should be brought into question. The globalization discourse, coupled with neo-liberalism, paves the way for the reification process to permeate in the global scale. It should be noted, however, that the utopia promised by globalizaion may, in fact, be a dystopia after all. This dystopia will suffer from large-scale unemployment, extreme polarization and immiseration, the collapse of the middle class, deteriorating cities, disintegrating families, etc.. As is aptly described by many critics of globalization, these are the prospects of any society lured toward the naked economism of neo-liberalism.
In this paper, I will provide a critique of the American values centering around the issues involving individualism and materialism. To begin with, its merits notwithstanding, individualism falls short of comprehending the multifaceted processes in which the individual is shaping and, at the same time, shaped by history and society. In juxtaposition to the subject enshrined by individualism, standing "above and beyond" history and society, the subject is the ensemble of social relations as Marx would have it. The subject is not a pre-given guarantee but a peculiar constituent which constitutes and is constituted by history and society. Furthermore, as is pointed out by many postmodern thinkers, the subject is not a monolithic unity but a disruptive complexity; not a concentric homogeneity but a decentered heterogeneity. This line of thinking makes it possible to conceive of a subject that is constantly being articulated anew, the resulting construction of which has no center. The limitations of individualism that strips the subject of its socio-historical context are clearly shown in the cultural explanations of poverty in the United States. This theory, often called the "culture of poverty," is inseparably intertwined with American individualism. My argument is that, by attributing the plight of the poor to the norms, values, and beliefs the poor themselves develop, the culture of poverty makes invisible the structure of society for poverty, just as individualism marginalizes and excludes the social construction of the subject. The culture of poverty, thus, entices the criticism that it blames the victim and perpetuates social inequality by justifying the status quo. In like fashion, I would argue that the best criticism of materialism in general and of American materialism in particular can be found in the explications of commodity fetishism and reification process. Capitalism involves the commodification which turns every element within its system into a commodity including human being and human relations. Reification refers to this extensive and intensive commodification process in capitalism. It is within this context that the so-called globalization should be brought into question. The globalization discourse, coupled with neo-liberalism, paves the way for the reification process to permeate in the global scale. It should be noted, however, that the utopia promised by globalizaion may, in fact, be a dystopia after all. This dystopia will suffer from large-scale unemployment, extreme polarization and immiseration, the collapse of the middle class, deteriorating cities, disintegrating families, etc.. As is aptly described by many critics of globalization, these are the prospects of any society lured toward the naked economism of neo-liberalism.
주제어
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.