What do you think?
Rate this book
Consumed - How Markets Corrupt Children, Infantilize Adults & Swallow Citizens Whole
"Powerful and disturbing. No one who cares about the future of our public life can afford to ignore this book."—Jackson Lears
A powerful sequel to Benjamin R. Barber's best-selling Jihad vs. McWorld, Consumed offers a vivid portrait of an overproducing global economy that targets children as consumers in a market where there are never enough shoppers and where the primary goal is no longer to manufacture goods but needs. To explain how and why this has come about, Barber brings together extensive empirical research with an original theoretical framework for understanding our contemporary predicament. He asserts that in place of the Protestant ethic once associated with capitalism—encouraging self-restraint, preparing for the future, protecting and self-sacrificing for children and community, and other characteristics of adulthood—we are constantly being seduced into an "infantilist" ethic of consumption.
A powerful sequel to Benjamin R. Barber's best-selling Jihad vs. McWorld, Consumed offers a vivid portrait of an overproducing global economy that targets children as consumers in a market where there are never enough shoppers and where the primary goal is no longer to manufacture goods but needs. To explain how and why this has come about, Barber brings together extensive empirical research with an original theoretical framework for understanding our contemporary predicament. He asserts that in place of the Protestant ethic once associated with capitalism—encouraging self-restraint, preparing for the future, protecting and self-sacrificing for children and community, and other characteristics of adulthood—we are constantly being seduced into an "infantilist" ethic of consumption.
320 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2007
136 people are currently reading
2225 people want to read
About the author
Benjamin R. Barber
43 books40 followersAmerican political theorist perhaps best known for his 1996 bestseller, Jihad vs. McWorld.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 133 reviews
April 12, 2010
Barber’s book in five easy steps:
1. Consumerist capitalism needs to create consumers who will buy goods ceaselessly. It does this by using advertising campaigns that create needs from wants. We become unable to distinguish between what we need and what we want.
2. Consumerist capitalism celebrates youth and not age. It values youthful and not mature behaviour. Thus it corrodes our ability to think. This allows us to be more easily manipulated and less able to participate meaningfully in making hard political choices.
3. Consumerist capitalism gives us the illusion of choice by giving us many different things to buy. Thus it convinces us that true freedom is in buying more things, and not in political participation.
4. Consumerist capitalism turns public goods like security and education into consumer goods via the process of privatisation. This erodes public trust and destroys the commonweal. Thus it turns us from citizens into consumers.
5. Hence capitalism destroys democracy.
Statements 1 to 4 are somewhat true for some people some of the time. However, they are not the be-all-and-end-all description of the state of modernity that Barber wants us to think they are. And they certainly do not lead ineluctably to statement 5.
Barber all too often relies on the rhetorical flourish to prove his case, as if saying something cleverly is to make it true. These sentences are typical of his idea of reasoned argument:
-- “Either democracy must be globalised or globalisation must be democratised.”
-- “In this new epoch in which the needy are without income and the well-heeled are without needs, radical inequality is simply assumed.”
-- “In the epoch in which we now live, civilisation is not an ideal or an aspiration, it is a video game.”
He is also prone to making sweeping statements like these:
-- “In higher education and elsewhere, the commercialising ethos of infantilisation encourages and is encouraged by a political ideology of privatisation that delegitimizes adult public goods such as critical thinking and public citizenship (once the primary objectives of higher education) in favour of self-involved private choice and narcissistic personal gain.”
-- “For the first time in history, a society has felt its economic survival demands a kind of controlled regression, a culture that promotes puerility rather than maturation.”
-- “Brand America feels like a metaphor, yet it is much more than that, not a game version of politics but politics itself reconceived as the new public relations specialty known as public diplomacy.”
Each of these statements appears to say much. Unfortunately, they have the same amount of content as the now-famous banner exclaiming, “Mission Accomplished!” That is to say, none.
It must surely be the second most ironic thing about this book that the only way one could be convinced by such hollow logic is if one has indeed developed no capacity for critical thought. The first most ironic thing is that Barber should think that such puerile demagoguery could be thought of as thoughtful critique.
1. Consumerist capitalism needs to create consumers who will buy goods ceaselessly. It does this by using advertising campaigns that create needs from wants. We become unable to distinguish between what we need and what we want.
2. Consumerist capitalism celebrates youth and not age. It values youthful and not mature behaviour. Thus it corrodes our ability to think. This allows us to be more easily manipulated and less able to participate meaningfully in making hard political choices.
3. Consumerist capitalism gives us the illusion of choice by giving us many different things to buy. Thus it convinces us that true freedom is in buying more things, and not in political participation.
4. Consumerist capitalism turns public goods like security and education into consumer goods via the process of privatisation. This erodes public trust and destroys the commonweal. Thus it turns us from citizens into consumers.
5. Hence capitalism destroys democracy.
Statements 1 to 4 are somewhat true for some people some of the time. However, they are not the be-all-and-end-all description of the state of modernity that Barber wants us to think they are. And they certainly do not lead ineluctably to statement 5.
Barber all too often relies on the rhetorical flourish to prove his case, as if saying something cleverly is to make it true. These sentences are typical of his idea of reasoned argument:
-- “Either democracy must be globalised or globalisation must be democratised.”
-- “In this new epoch in which the needy are without income and the well-heeled are without needs, radical inequality is simply assumed.”
-- “In the epoch in which we now live, civilisation is not an ideal or an aspiration, it is a video game.”
He is also prone to making sweeping statements like these:
-- “In higher education and elsewhere, the commercialising ethos of infantilisation encourages and is encouraged by a political ideology of privatisation that delegitimizes adult public goods such as critical thinking and public citizenship (once the primary objectives of higher education) in favour of self-involved private choice and narcissistic personal gain.”
-- “For the first time in history, a society has felt its economic survival demands a kind of controlled regression, a culture that promotes puerility rather than maturation.”
-- “Brand America feels like a metaphor, yet it is much more than that, not a game version of politics but politics itself reconceived as the new public relations specialty known as public diplomacy.”
Each of these statements appears to say much. Unfortunately, they have the same amount of content as the now-famous banner exclaiming, “Mission Accomplished!” That is to say, none.
It must surely be the second most ironic thing about this book that the only way one could be convinced by such hollow logic is if one has indeed developed no capacity for critical thought. The first most ironic thing is that Barber should think that such puerile demagoguery could be thought of as thoughtful critique.
December 10, 2011
It took me more than a year to finish this book--sometimes, that should tell you something about me, but in this case, that should tell you something about this book. While Barber's overall thesis is compelling and important, his presentation of it seemed calculated to alienate any possible allies. Pompous and blustering, he writes most of the book's 339 small-font pages in a breathless, melodramatic tone of fervent moral passion and outrage (I suppose the subtitle should've warned me adequately: "How Markets Corrupt Children, Infantilize Adults, and Swallow Citizens Whole"). Now, this would understandable as an occasional device. The subject is one that calls for moral passion and outrage, and I, for one, am sympathetic to the desire to indulge in rhetorically-charged passages chock-full of unusual polysyllabic words. So for the first chapter or two, I was willing to go along for the ride. I even underlined and starred lots of the more colorful passages. But intense rhetoric is only effective as an occasional device, as a departure from the benchmark of more restrained rhetoric. Unfortunately, for Barber, the bombastic was the benchmark, from which he almost never departed. And as you can imagine, that begins to grate on one.
This bombast results in a desire to include in his indictment of consumer culture pretty much every conceivable example and phenomenon he can think of, regardless of whether it's relevant or compelling. Instead of a focused account of some of the most alarming trends and damning evidence, Barber is determined to offer a comprehensive account of everything that is wrong with the world today under his heading of "infantilization." Couple that with the fact that he seems to have been too pompous to have accepted any advice from his editor, and one has to endure many pages of irrelevant or laughably overblown laundry lists of complaints.
Now, I say all that and still give this three stars, because as I said, his overall thesis is compelling and very important. Basically, Barber argues that a vast distance separates the consumer capitalism of our own day from the productive capitalism of yesteryear which pundits continue to laud, idealistically imagining that our economic system today is scarcely different from that of 100 years ago, and that today's critics of capitalism can be answered by appealing to capitalism's virtues of yesteryear. As a somewhat nostalgic, rose-tinted view of capitalism's past, Barber's portrait leaves me skeptical, but as a diagnosis of our contemporary condition, I think he is spot-on. Originally, says Barber, capitalism served to meet genuine human needs, and it did a really excellent job of this; now, however, with genuine material needs sated in the West, capitalism has had to turn to *creating* artificial needs and wants that it can satisfy. Not only that, but although there are still many places in the world with genuine needs, urgent needs, it is far less profitable to service these than it is to continue to feed the pathological desires of consumer society. Producers, eager to create as much demand as possible to a strategy of infantilization, and this is the heart of Barber's argument.
Since children have far less sales resistance, far less ability to discriminate what they really want and really need, far less ability to make rational decisions about what they can afford and what they can't, it's much easier to sell to children than adults, easier to get them hooked on brands and products. So Barber chronicles the sinister ways that companies have sought to take over childhood with commercialism, barraging children not only with a surfeit of children's products, but also colonizing childhood prematurely with the trappings and products of adulthood. Not only that, but it pays to keep adults in a perpetual state of childlike neediness and dependency, to establish habits of impulse buying and brand addiction that people will never outgrow. Some of Barber's examples of the phenomenon of infantilization (e.g., the popularity of Pixar, which makes "children's movies") are quite poor, and even hurt his thesis, but overall, as I say, it's compelling. Of course, it's important to note that Barber does not treat this simply as some big conspiracy on the part of manufacturers (although occasionally he comes off that way), but as an overarching social phenomenon in which we are all complicit.
The other key theme of Barber's argument is "privatization," understood not in its narrow sense of handing over government functions to corporations (though that is part of it), but as a wider problem of the destruction of the public, the atomization of society, and the consequent loss of corporate moral agency (note that "corporate" here and following does not mean "relating to a corporation"). Although I'm not sure that he cites her at all, Hannah Arendt's fascinating discussion of the "privation of the private" provides an excellent foundation for his argument here. He argues that we have made such an idol out of personal choice and freedom that we find ourselves powerless to oppose all kinds of things that almost no one wants and almost everyone considers harmful--unrestricted pornography, aggressive marketing of junk food to children, etc. Indeed, he points out in a section that should be of great interest to conservative Christians how this demographic finds itself in a ridiculous quandary. On the one hand, conservative Christians are most concerned about many of the things the culture is throwing at our children, and the ways that the ubiquity of media and the aggressiveness of advertising make it impossible to escape from, and yet conservative Christians are most likely to eschew any public means of combating this onslaught, and are reduced to each fighting their losing battles as tiny enclaves. In the interests of freedom, we have actually accepted a great loss of freedom, since to resist some evils and protect some freedoms, it requires corporate agency--to remain free, we cannot each rely solely on our own resources. Barber offers a compelling apologia for regulation, understood not as the officious meddling of power-hungry bureaucrats, but as the collective decision of citizens to stand against and rein in forces that undermine society and morality.
Now, we are naturally inclined to suspect that Barber is simply going to take us out of the frying pan and put us into the fire, substituting the evils of big government for the evils of big market. This knee-jerk suspicion is often unfair, because there is a genuine place for government in restraining rapacious markets. But in this case, we are right to be a bit suspicious. Barber is almost as eloquent in eulogizing "democracy" as he is in decrying consumerism. He has this rosy idea that somehow if we all stepped up to the plate and were willing to be "citizens" again, and engage in real democracy, exercising our corporate moral agency, then everything would be alright. Given the depth of the cultural malaise that Barber identifies in this book, I'm awfully skeptical. For this reason, the last two chapters, trying to offer a way out of our current predicament, are the weakest.
For all this book's weaknesses, however, I would definitely recommend reading the first four chapters, if you can handle that much of the hypertrophied rhetoric. For a more disciplined treatment of some similar issues, read Naomi Klein's No Logo. And for a very concise and thoroughly theological overview of many of the same problems, read Cavanaugh's fantastic Being Consumed. And, of course, for a primer on the nature and importance of corporate moral agency, read Richard Hooker. :-)
This bombast results in a desire to include in his indictment of consumer culture pretty much every conceivable example and phenomenon he can think of, regardless of whether it's relevant or compelling. Instead of a focused account of some of the most alarming trends and damning evidence, Barber is determined to offer a comprehensive account of everything that is wrong with the world today under his heading of "infantilization." Couple that with the fact that he seems to have been too pompous to have accepted any advice from his editor, and one has to endure many pages of irrelevant or laughably overblown laundry lists of complaints.
Now, I say all that and still give this three stars, because as I said, his overall thesis is compelling and very important. Basically, Barber argues that a vast distance separates the consumer capitalism of our own day from the productive capitalism of yesteryear which pundits continue to laud, idealistically imagining that our economic system today is scarcely different from that of 100 years ago, and that today's critics of capitalism can be answered by appealing to capitalism's virtues of yesteryear. As a somewhat nostalgic, rose-tinted view of capitalism's past, Barber's portrait leaves me skeptical, but as a diagnosis of our contemporary condition, I think he is spot-on. Originally, says Barber, capitalism served to meet genuine human needs, and it did a really excellent job of this; now, however, with genuine material needs sated in the West, capitalism has had to turn to *creating* artificial needs and wants that it can satisfy. Not only that, but although there are still many places in the world with genuine needs, urgent needs, it is far less profitable to service these than it is to continue to feed the pathological desires of consumer society. Producers, eager to create as much demand as possible to a strategy of infantilization, and this is the heart of Barber's argument.
Since children have far less sales resistance, far less ability to discriminate what they really want and really need, far less ability to make rational decisions about what they can afford and what they can't, it's much easier to sell to children than adults, easier to get them hooked on brands and products. So Barber chronicles the sinister ways that companies have sought to take over childhood with commercialism, barraging children not only with a surfeit of children's products, but also colonizing childhood prematurely with the trappings and products of adulthood. Not only that, but it pays to keep adults in a perpetual state of childlike neediness and dependency, to establish habits of impulse buying and brand addiction that people will never outgrow. Some of Barber's examples of the phenomenon of infantilization (e.g., the popularity of Pixar, which makes "children's movies") are quite poor, and even hurt his thesis, but overall, as I say, it's compelling. Of course, it's important to note that Barber does not treat this simply as some big conspiracy on the part of manufacturers (although occasionally he comes off that way), but as an overarching social phenomenon in which we are all complicit.
The other key theme of Barber's argument is "privatization," understood not in its narrow sense of handing over government functions to corporations (though that is part of it), but as a wider problem of the destruction of the public, the atomization of society, and the consequent loss of corporate moral agency (note that "corporate" here and following does not mean "relating to a corporation"). Although I'm not sure that he cites her at all, Hannah Arendt's fascinating discussion of the "privation of the private" provides an excellent foundation for his argument here. He argues that we have made such an idol out of personal choice and freedom that we find ourselves powerless to oppose all kinds of things that almost no one wants and almost everyone considers harmful--unrestricted pornography, aggressive marketing of junk food to children, etc. Indeed, he points out in a section that should be of great interest to conservative Christians how this demographic finds itself in a ridiculous quandary. On the one hand, conservative Christians are most concerned about many of the things the culture is throwing at our children, and the ways that the ubiquity of media and the aggressiveness of advertising make it impossible to escape from, and yet conservative Christians are most likely to eschew any public means of combating this onslaught, and are reduced to each fighting their losing battles as tiny enclaves. In the interests of freedom, we have actually accepted a great loss of freedom, since to resist some evils and protect some freedoms, it requires corporate agency--to remain free, we cannot each rely solely on our own resources. Barber offers a compelling apologia for regulation, understood not as the officious meddling of power-hungry bureaucrats, but as the collective decision of citizens to stand against and rein in forces that undermine society and morality.
Now, we are naturally inclined to suspect that Barber is simply going to take us out of the frying pan and put us into the fire, substituting the evils of big government for the evils of big market. This knee-jerk suspicion is often unfair, because there is a genuine place for government in restraining rapacious markets. But in this case, we are right to be a bit suspicious. Barber is almost as eloquent in eulogizing "democracy" as he is in decrying consumerism. He has this rosy idea that somehow if we all stepped up to the plate and were willing to be "citizens" again, and engage in real democracy, exercising our corporate moral agency, then everything would be alright. Given the depth of the cultural malaise that Barber identifies in this book, I'm awfully skeptical. For this reason, the last two chapters, trying to offer a way out of our current predicament, are the weakest.
For all this book's weaknesses, however, I would definitely recommend reading the first four chapters, if you can handle that much of the hypertrophied rhetoric. For a more disciplined treatment of some similar issues, read Naomi Klein's No Logo. And for a very concise and thoroughly theological overview of many of the same problems, read Cavanaugh's fantastic Being Consumed. And, of course, for a primer on the nature and importance of corporate moral agency, read Richard Hooker. :-)
August 11, 2008
The premise of this book sounded promising, but I felt let down at the end of it. Barber spends what seems like over half of the book to get to his point -- which is that the rampant consumerism so prevalent in the U.S. is actually undermining democracy itself -- and while he's doing this, he's so disdainful of anything that has the mere hint of consumerist pap that it's hard to think he's capable of enjoying anything that isn't considered high-brow literature or conversation.
His point is a good one, but I found his defense of it less than fleshed out. He spends more time discussing how base and crass everything in our society is -- from movies to text messaging to what seems like his favorite target, video games -- than he does in explaining how exactly this is supposed to be undermining the democratic process.
There are a couple of sections, however, in which his point really hits home. One of these is the outsourcing of war. Barber talks about the unnerving shift between a time when we used actual soldiers to fight a war that an actual nation was in charge of to a time when we government figures pay shadowy corporations like Blackwater to fight our wars for us. Barber's main point is that citizens cannot take their proper role in civic duty if their desires have to be pulled between their own personal desires (the consumerism-based "I want") and their civic desires (the democractically-based "we want"). This point is expanded on in this section: when we use our representative government to send soldiers to fight a war, we stand behind it as a nation and as civic-minded citizens; when we allow private companies to fight our wars for us, we outsource democracy to the point of rendering it impotent here at home and abroad.
What stuck in my craw, though, about this book was the tone that Barber takes with anything that might be construed as entertainment for entertainment's sake, or anything that's deemed globally-inclusive, technologically-innovative, or anything that can shortcut labor. He specifically seems to have a deep hate for video games, and since I make them for a living, maybe I'm a little biased, but it seemed misplaced. He consistently refers to the people that play them as "man-boys" or "kidults" and only seems to refer to those video games that have garnered a notorious but certainly non-representative reputation for being immature or violent (or both). In his last chapter he devotes some time to how we can fight consumerism in the name of democracy and does actually mention a couple of video games that actually raise the bar, but it seems like a bitter afterthought. Text messaging is condemned as childish and immature, movies are bashed as being devoid of any value. As he's trying to make his point, Barber unfortunately comes off as a man who's afraid of progress, or at least is so black and white in his views on some technologies that he sees absolutely no way in which these could possibly serve the common good.
In the end, I felt that he had an interesting point -- the entire reason why I picked up the book in the first place -- but went off on so many tangents as to why these things were bad for us that his point got lost in the crabbing.
His point is a good one, but I found his defense of it less than fleshed out. He spends more time discussing how base and crass everything in our society is -- from movies to text messaging to what seems like his favorite target, video games -- than he does in explaining how exactly this is supposed to be undermining the democratic process.
There are a couple of sections, however, in which his point really hits home. One of these is the outsourcing of war. Barber talks about the unnerving shift between a time when we used actual soldiers to fight a war that an actual nation was in charge of to a time when we government figures pay shadowy corporations like Blackwater to fight our wars for us. Barber's main point is that citizens cannot take their proper role in civic duty if their desires have to be pulled between their own personal desires (the consumerism-based "I want") and their civic desires (the democractically-based "we want"). This point is expanded on in this section: when we use our representative government to send soldiers to fight a war, we stand behind it as a nation and as civic-minded citizens; when we allow private companies to fight our wars for us, we outsource democracy to the point of rendering it impotent here at home and abroad.
What stuck in my craw, though, about this book was the tone that Barber takes with anything that might be construed as entertainment for entertainment's sake, or anything that's deemed globally-inclusive, technologically-innovative, or anything that can shortcut labor. He specifically seems to have a deep hate for video games, and since I make them for a living, maybe I'm a little biased, but it seemed misplaced. He consistently refers to the people that play them as "man-boys" or "kidults" and only seems to refer to those video games that have garnered a notorious but certainly non-representative reputation for being immature or violent (or both). In his last chapter he devotes some time to how we can fight consumerism in the name of democracy and does actually mention a couple of video games that actually raise the bar, but it seems like a bitter afterthought. Text messaging is condemned as childish and immature, movies are bashed as being devoid of any value. As he's trying to make his point, Barber unfortunately comes off as a man who's afraid of progress, or at least is so black and white in his views on some technologies that he sees absolutely no way in which these could possibly serve the common good.
In the end, I felt that he had an interesting point -- the entire reason why I picked up the book in the first place -- but went off on so many tangents as to why these things were bad for us that his point got lost in the crabbing.
aborted
August 29, 2023In theory, this book contains interesting ideas. But I couldn't deal with Barber's logorrheal prose style, packed to the gills with factoids and examples, all of them enough out of date (pre-2007) to be irksome. Even it had been worth reading, the print is so small - the font size of the notes is the smallest I've ever seen in a book - it wouldn't have been a pleasant experience.
August 6, 2010
A book such as this is polarizing and any reviews will inevitably be emotionally founded in the economy ideology in which the reviewer subsides in. That being the case, knowing full well my own political and economic bias, the point is very well argued. The complaints of redundancy are founded and the work does not purport to be a literary masterpiece. The scene which he depicts is one in which corporations vie with more traditional institutions over subversive influence on the lives of citizens. The result is an marketing onslaught which seeks to undermine any and all anti-consumerist forces which stand in the way of profit, including responsible parenting. The low review summaries are accurate, but that doesn't mean the book should not be read. Likewise, those who criticize the ending miss the point. Do they expect 200+ pages criticizing the infantile impulse to be fed everything to end in the author telling everyone what to do? Read the book, if for no other reason than to understand the forces at play against parents who wish to raise responsible, morally upright children who will make adult decisions and not spend their entire lives in the selfish and empty pursuit of consumable goods.
Read
August 4, 2008This has been sitting in my room with a bookmark in it for a couple of months now - I slogged through the chapter on Adorno and Veblen et al and said, "gnh, I'll finish this later." Well, it's later now, and the book is due soon, and I think I'm just going to let it go. I'm far from a defender of Lady Capitalism and her Free Market Brigade, but the section I read was so reactionary and condescending that it made me want to go on a day-long Wal-Mart shopping spree out of spite.
June 16, 2007
Consumed is designed as a wake-up call, however Barber will be hard-pressed to get the attention of our consumption-laden populace, who wishes only to be entertained and not educated. This book is not entertaining in the least, but it does provide a solid historical view of the stages of capitalism in this country and the perils of our current consumerist mindset. Barber uses the phrase infantilist ethos to describe our psychological state, which has been established by robust and omnipresent marketing and advertising.
This is not a book meant to make you feel better about our situation as a supposed democratic nation. Barber gives his readers the choice between more iPods or social change. He believes our civic duty is to unplug the headphones and become more worldy. Yet,unfortunately, most prefer private life to public duty. We prefer to pin yellow ribbons on our cars and say we support the troops as we drive our SUVs to the mall. No we cannot shop our way to heal our economic situation. As Barber rightly says, we have to become more disciplined and careful not carefree.
This is not a book meant to make you feel better about our situation as a supposed democratic nation. Barber gives his readers the choice between more iPods or social change. He believes our civic duty is to unplug the headphones and become more worldy. Yet,unfortunately, most prefer private life to public duty. We prefer to pin yellow ribbons on our cars and say we support the troops as we drive our SUVs to the mall. No we cannot shop our way to heal our economic situation. As Barber rightly says, we have to become more disciplined and careful not carefree.
August 25, 2011
I thought that i would like this book. Barber wrote a short essay (maybe 7 or 8 pages) called "Shrunken Sovereign" for World Affairs' Spring 2008 issue. In it, he basically rehearsed the argument that he makes in this book. However, the essay in world affairs was not any indicator of the quality of this book. The essay is a triumph. This book, however, is poorly written. Pretty much every paragraph has at least one claim in it that is indefensible, or at the very least misguided.
I agree with Barber that consumerist capitalism is creating perma-kids. I agree that it fosters the kind of citizens that are ill-fitted for the responsibilities of democracy (see: the tea party, Orange County as it exists on television). However, no amount of my agreeing with his basic points could get me through this book.
If you're interested in a beautiful essay that demonstrates the seriousness of the mess that we're in, without all the nonsense and polemics, read "Shrunken Sovereign." It's makes the point this book set out to make, without any misguided pop-culture mireadings.
I agree with Barber that consumerist capitalism is creating perma-kids. I agree that it fosters the kind of citizens that are ill-fitted for the responsibilities of democracy (see: the tea party, Orange County as it exists on television). However, no amount of my agreeing with his basic points could get me through this book.
If you're interested in a beautiful essay that demonstrates the seriousness of the mess that we're in, without all the nonsense and polemics, read "Shrunken Sovereign." It's makes the point this book set out to make, without any misguided pop-culture mireadings.
May 15, 2012
The book sounded interesting, and from the description it had the potential to be thought-provoking. The author made some good points.
Unfortunately, those points were overshadowed by the author's complete failure to understand pop culture- no, it's not all Shakespeare, but neither is it as infantile as he makes it out to be. (Seriously, he used The Incredibles as an example of the puerility of modern movies. He's apparently unable to divorce his preconceptions of the medium from the actual content- since when is snark about profiteering insurance companies for kids?)
The first three chapters of the book come off as one long, overblown 'kids these days!' rant- the language may be highfalutin', but it's the same sentiment. The author is, pardon my word choice, a serious fanboy of the 'Protestant work ethic' and so dismissive of video games, comic books/graphic novels, contemporary film, TV, etc that the well known definition of Puritanism springs to mind- the haunting fear that someone, somewhere is having fun. Growing up doesn't mean never having fun again or surrendering for all time the right to a little whimsy now and then.
The author also does not understand modern communications. I can't spend time in person with my younger cousins who live halfway across the country on a regular basis, but I can Skype/IM/txt/play online games/Facebook/etc. Just because we're staying in touch that way does not mean our contact is somehow less valid than if we sat down and wrote letters- in fact, I'd argue it's richer. IM and and texting does not have to be ADD or mindless time-killing. Sometimes it's a convenient way to keep in touch while doing other things. The increased options we have for real-time communications seems like a good thing from where I'm sitting, but the author seems to feel otherwise.
The book got better about halfway through, when the author stopped his screed about pop culture and got down to business talking about consumerism, capitalism as currently practiced, and the effects of both on society. Unfortunately, by that time, I was reading very critically due to the bad aftertaste from the cranky old man chapters.
Unfortunately, those points were overshadowed by the author's complete failure to understand pop culture- no, it's not all Shakespeare, but neither is it as infantile as he makes it out to be. (Seriously, he used The Incredibles as an example of the puerility of modern movies. He's apparently unable to divorce his preconceptions of the medium from the actual content- since when is snark about profiteering insurance companies for kids?)
The first three chapters of the book come off as one long, overblown 'kids these days!' rant- the language may be highfalutin', but it's the same sentiment. The author is, pardon my word choice, a serious fanboy of the 'Protestant work ethic' and so dismissive of video games, comic books/graphic novels, contemporary film, TV, etc that the well known definition of Puritanism springs to mind- the haunting fear that someone, somewhere is having fun. Growing up doesn't mean never having fun again or surrendering for all time the right to a little whimsy now and then.
The author also does not understand modern communications. I can't spend time in person with my younger cousins who live halfway across the country on a regular basis, but I can Skype/IM/txt/play online games/Facebook/etc. Just because we're staying in touch that way does not mean our contact is somehow less valid than if we sat down and wrote letters- in fact, I'd argue it's richer. IM and and texting does not have to be ADD or mindless time-killing. Sometimes it's a convenient way to keep in touch while doing other things. The increased options we have for real-time communications seems like a good thing from where I'm sitting, but the author seems to feel otherwise.
The book got better about halfway through, when the author stopped his screed about pop culture and got down to business talking about consumerism, capitalism as currently practiced, and the effects of both on society. Unfortunately, by that time, I was reading very critically due to the bad aftertaste from the cranky old man chapters.
September 23, 2024
Before I go into a (hopefully not too long) review of this book, I want to type out one of the many excerpts that stood out to me:
"After all, when religion colonizes every sector of what should be our multidimensional lives, we call the result theocracy; and when politics colonizes every sector of what should be our multidimensional lives, we call the result tyranny. So why, it might be asked, when the marketplace--with its insistent ideology of consumption and its dogged orthodoxy of spending--colonizes every sector of what should be our multidimensional lives, do we call the result liberty?" (pages 220-221)
This was a fantastic read. Benjamin R. Barber's prose reads like poetry, which is impressive for a book with a great deal of information. His argument for subverting the wild market-borne 'infantilist ethos' of today did not take on a radical, subversive approach against capitalism that the heavy-handed title may suggest. Instead, he coherently outlined how the ethos has gotten out of hand through a historical account of Protestant asceticism that shouldn't have allowed for it to exist in the first place, its insertion into the public sector and the severe civic consequences that followed that, and an evaluation of globalization's enabling of th ethos.
While it started off a bit dense with the historical account of Protestant asceticism, but picked up greatly afterward. The potency of Barber's message lies best with his comparison and contrast of democratic ideals versus the unfettered free market of today, especially in how fairly he examined both ends' strengths and weaknesses.
He also does well in referencing Naomi Klein and Kalle Lans, whose cited works I've read, thus allowing me to appreciate how perfectly they were applied with each mention. The only negative feedback I have is Barber's didactic tone throughout portions of the book in which he mentioned subcultures very briefly (such as the 'childfree' movement).
I loved it. I could see myself re-reading it, and this is coming from someone who almost never picks up a book twice.
"After all, when religion colonizes every sector of what should be our multidimensional lives, we call the result theocracy; and when politics colonizes every sector of what should be our multidimensional lives, we call the result tyranny. So why, it might be asked, when the marketplace--with its insistent ideology of consumption and its dogged orthodoxy of spending--colonizes every sector of what should be our multidimensional lives, do we call the result liberty?" (pages 220-221)
This was a fantastic read. Benjamin R. Barber's prose reads like poetry, which is impressive for a book with a great deal of information. His argument for subverting the wild market-borne 'infantilist ethos' of today did not take on a radical, subversive approach against capitalism that the heavy-handed title may suggest. Instead, he coherently outlined how the ethos has gotten out of hand through a historical account of Protestant asceticism that shouldn't have allowed for it to exist in the first place, its insertion into the public sector and the severe civic consequences that followed that, and an evaluation of globalization's enabling of th ethos.
While it started off a bit dense with the historical account of Protestant asceticism, but picked up greatly afterward. The potency of Barber's message lies best with his comparison and contrast of democratic ideals versus the unfettered free market of today, especially in how fairly he examined both ends' strengths and weaknesses.
He also does well in referencing Naomi Klein and Kalle Lans, whose cited works I've read, thus allowing me to appreciate how perfectly they were applied with each mention. The only negative feedback I have is Barber's didactic tone throughout portions of the book in which he mentioned subcultures very briefly (such as the 'childfree' movement).
I loved it. I could see myself re-reading it, and this is coming from someone who almost never picks up a book twice.
October 1, 2014
Solidly brought across the concepts of infantilism, how it is "inculcated" (I like that he used that word) purposefully in a consumer state, the need to make consumers out of children and their market power, this concept of civi schizophrenia, the loss of real freedom (civic responsibility and power), the false freedom of the many consumer choices engineered for us, how diversity loss happens and in what capacity, and the paltry quality of resistance.
There was a great deal of repetitiveness, as it always is in these kinds of books, but by the end, none of the concepts were hard to understand. Some woolgathering. Some emotion. But I found that the emotion was reasonably justifiable.
Reading the book now, it's almost funny to think of what was considered egregious in the 2001-2004 era, commonly referenced here.
There was a great deal of repetitiveness, as it always is in these kinds of books, but by the end, none of the concepts were hard to understand. Some woolgathering. Some emotion. But I found that the emotion was reasonably justifiable.
Reading the book now, it's almost funny to think of what was considered egregious in the 2001-2004 era, commonly referenced here.
September 24, 2007
Very dry & too proselytizing. The 'infantilization' was presented in the manner of a literary academic argument where the writer was searching for tropes to support a theme, rather than as a scientific argument with evidence. This is unfortunate as in general I felt the writer had a point and got hung up on his own semantics.
December 31, 2009
A tentative, paternal liberal manifesto in opposition to the lifestyle of rampant consumerism.
Barber invokes a number of astute observations, particularly how certain consumer preferences compromise the stability of prevailing historical conceptions of adulthood and citizenship,however, his thesis is weakened by his unwillingness to consider the systemic functionality of consumer capitalism alongside his own moral argument. Indeed, Barber demonstrates his cynical rejection of such suggestions with an undergraduate misinterpretation of Marcuse's concept of Western totalitarianism -- which is dismissed out of hand as antiquated marxist fantasy, as if to suggest that a close reading of the original text is not warranted. Contrary to what some reviews have argued, Barber writes in unflagging support of capitalism. However, he aspires to a Utopian capitalism, perhaps one in which fans of, for instance, mixed martial arts and monstrous hamburgers are taxed for their supposedly appetitive tastes, with the resultant funds being channeled to public art.
In the end, Barber is guilty of the same offenses that conservatives critics have consistently leveled upon similar texts. Barber is not opposed to consumerism as a whole, only the sort of consumer which offends his proposed moral code.
Barber invokes a number of astute observations, particularly how certain consumer preferences compromise the stability of prevailing historical conceptions of adulthood and citizenship,however, his thesis is weakened by his unwillingness to consider the systemic functionality of consumer capitalism alongside his own moral argument. Indeed, Barber demonstrates his cynical rejection of such suggestions with an undergraduate misinterpretation of Marcuse's concept of Western totalitarianism -- which is dismissed out of hand as antiquated marxist fantasy, as if to suggest that a close reading of the original text is not warranted. Contrary to what some reviews have argued, Barber writes in unflagging support of capitalism. However, he aspires to a Utopian capitalism, perhaps one in which fans of, for instance, mixed martial arts and monstrous hamburgers are taxed for their supposedly appetitive tastes, with the resultant funds being channeled to public art.
In the end, Barber is guilty of the same offenses that conservatives critics have consistently leveled upon similar texts. Barber is not opposed to consumerism as a whole, only the sort of consumer which offends his proposed moral code.
July 31, 2010
Provocative!- the author Benjamin Barber puts forward a really strong case for the realization and dangers of 'infantilization'- i.e., enduring childishness as more than just a simple metaphor for what is occurring in consumer capitalism today; and, he frames a window for considering productivist needs, real needs and even touches on invented needs that Karl Marx long ago discussed as 'imaginary needs,' at a time when we have become a consuming society in the U.S. lending q. and possibly for creating an understanding-to-a-poke in the ribs for centering and becoming more aware of the most current economic predicament we have and are inventing in our society today.
Surprisingly, he even brings up the mentioning/ideals of Vance Packard, the social commentator/ writer from years back and his thoughts on the relinquishing of our sense of community and fragmentation and the shaping of cultural identity. I remember his books A Nation of Strangers, and the Hidden Pursuaders and the awareness they first stirred in myself.
Surprisingly, he even brings up the mentioning/ideals of Vance Packard, the social commentator/ writer from years back and his thoughts on the relinquishing of our sense of community and fragmentation and the shaping of cultural identity. I remember his books A Nation of Strangers, and the Hidden Pursuaders and the awareness they first stirred in myself.
March 23, 2013
After a mere ten pages, the amount of redundancy and overuse of buzzwords was more than I could handle. The accusations of the "infantilizing" of the current 20-something generation is the same tired point that has emerged from the mouths of the older generation to the younger since humanity has evolved vocal chords to form speech. People change, life-styles change, societies and their conventions change. Get used to this idea, sir. The author ridicules people who should apparently be acting like adults for being interested in music or reading the Lord of the Rings Trilogy...which if I am not mistaken is lauded by many literary critics as being one of the greatest literary achievements of the English language and contains many themes of anti-consumerism itself. Should these people instead be acting like adults by watching sports on TV, buying houses and cars and indoctrinating themselves into a 'grown-up' world of stress and debt. Maybe there are further explanations in this book, but I wont be reading on to find out.
November 7, 2007
This ended up being way over my head. Too dense.
The premise is that the international economy is pushing companies to make and market their products to "The lowest common denominator". The result is that more people buy them, which is good for business, but bad for society. The dumbing down of movies is a good example of this. According to Barker, people are being told they "need" consumer products from cradle to grave. Because of this they are more interested in their choices at Wal-Mart than their choices in political leaders. That's the gist of what he's saying. I can't say that I agree with everything he says, but there are some interesting ideas and he backs them up with good examples. Unfortunately his writing style is excruciatingly academic. I'm all the lazier for it, but I ended up putting it down a third of the way through.
The premise is that the international economy is pushing companies to make and market their products to "The lowest common denominator". The result is that more people buy them, which is good for business, but bad for society. The dumbing down of movies is a good example of this. According to Barker, people are being told they "need" consumer products from cradle to grave. Because of this they are more interested in their choices at Wal-Mart than their choices in political leaders. That's the gist of what he's saying. I can't say that I agree with everything he says, but there are some interesting ideas and he backs them up with good examples. Unfortunately his writing style is excruciatingly academic. I'm all the lazier for it, but I ended up putting it down a third of the way through.
July 8, 2012
Essentially, this book is saying that consumer capitalism is turning people into child like morons in order to sell them more crap they neither want nor need. This point is valid if hardly a revolutionary idea. However, if one spends 300+ pages bitching about the effects of consumer capitalism on mass culture, they have an obligation to provide something more than a weak, vague solution to this problem. I wasn't expecting a "cure all" solution but his solution (some vaguely defined world regulation of such practices to counter the international reach of multinational corporations) is unconvincing and impractical. Still, this book ought to be a big "hit" with the Champagne Socialist National Public Radio crowd.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 3, 2013
Not particularly original or well-written. This book felt more like an introduction to criticism of capitalism than a piece of actual scholarship. Barber bounces from how shitty movies get made to how children in sub-Saharan Africa don't have enough vitamins. The vulgar outcomes of capitalism are many, to be sure, but Barber's solution of 'more democracy' and a 'global citizenry' are cliches, if not simply meaningless platitudes. Without any notions of how we might actually subvert capitalism's worst tendencies, this book reads like a list of complaints rather than a constructive critique.
Not recommended. This will be my last time giving anything by Benjamin Barber the benefit of the doubt.
Not recommended. This will be my last time giving anything by Benjamin Barber the benefit of the doubt.
March 11, 2016
This review originally appeared on my website thefrugalnexus
Benjamin Barber’s sortie against consumerism is sure to reverberate from the glass tower offices of big box USA to the indolent consumer buying pre-peeled oranges (a real example of infantilization of society).
As way of general review, Barber’s main avenue of assault is by drive by shooting. Barber has a lengthy list of target and what he does is drive up, unloads his quick assault and then drives off to the next target, in other words, Barber’s pages are packed dense with many ideas and examples, but often he only spends a few sentences discussing them. His writing sometimes feels like being in a swamp, a humid, slow trotting affair, that takes time to get through. Other times Barber writing is lucid and reads like a car drives over fresh highway. In other words: Barber writes like a political theorist, fitting because he is a political scientist by trade. Barber divided his book into three sections: The Birth of consumers, the eclipse of citizens and the fate of citizens.
Barber’s main theme is fighting against the hyper-consumption in our contemporary era . Consumerism, according to Barber is the latest stage of capitalism, one where needs are no longer met by producers but our needs are being produced by producers. Advertising and marketing serve to enhance our wants, thus, producers can produce more. The greatest threat to producers, is not over-producing, but people not buying enough. An ad in 1926 from Life magazine had the header “GO AHEAD AND MAKE US WANT” (pg.291), which shows us the early recognition of advertising in society. This is the spine of his argument, to which Barber navigates various aspects of the rise of consumerism, the pass-over of the Protestant ethos to an infantilized ethos, the ascent of markets and the supremacy of the private, then Barber closes with some words on what can be done about this consumer melancholy.
Birth of consumers – section one
Barber uses the protestant ethos, one that he suggests has been the defining characteristic of the nascent United States (a ethos that values: self-restraint, delayed gratification, rationality, and order). The protestant work ethic has been a resounding reason for the victory of American style capitalism. I’ll interject, any work that is critical of markets, usually gets the typical vacuous responses, particularly among the right. However, while Barber is critiquing markets in our era, he is still an ardent defender of capitalistic virtues. This is evident when Barber discusses early capitalism, a system that allowed for needs to be fulfilled while providing the right incentives to do so. Our consumerist epoch however, is threatening to the virtues from early capitalism.
Infantilization is a big theme that Barber pursues in this book. Barber writes that in one sense, infantilization is a metaphoric word that describes the “dumbing” down and bamboozlement of the citizenry of the West (or perhaps even the world!), date raped into buying things they don’t need. In the other sense of the word infantilization describes how children and young adults are now targets of marketers and advertisers and the inverse: adults are being being manipulated into buying things that were originally for kids . Barber quotes conservative writer Joseph Epstein whilst making a larger point:
More and more adults are “locked in a high school of the mind, eating dry cereal, watching a vast quantity of television, hoping to make sexual scores” and generally enjoying perpetual adolescence, cut loose, free of responsibility, without the real pressures that life, that messy business, always exerts”. (pg. 16)
One of my first critiques would be Barber’s tangible examples when it comes illustrating the ever youthening of adults. Barber lists a few examples in which ways adults have been dumbed down to buy consumer goods more for children. I’ve noted a few other user reviews who take issue with some of the examples, but only because their activity was in the cross hairs. What Barber does, while doing his metaphorical drive-bys, is describe some product or activity, declare it as juvenile and drive on. One Goodreads reader was offended when Barber implied that Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter were juvenile books. I can probably agree with Barber, especially when it comes to Harry Potter, but, the issue here isn’t these specific examples. That’s not what matters, it’s how do we classify and perceive certain activities as childish or adult.
I think there were some low-hanging fruit that Barber could’ve grabbed to help make his case: like self described “nerds” buying toys (Look Sheldon bought a batman toy!), or the mass flocking to reliving the Nickelodeon nostalgia days, Sponge Bob anyone? But it doesn’t matter – I do for the record, think that Barber missed his target on some of these. He mentions video games for instance -and as a gamer and being cognizant of not trying to sound like that particular Goodreaders reader – but dumping the whole category as just childish play things, requires a bit more arguments, not pursued by Barber. Although while he makes such blanket statements early on, he does go on later to extol the virtues of some games like Sim City.
Barber does a better job describing infantilization by talking about infantilization in terms of psychological dyads (pg. 83). Barber quotes a list of psychological traits that contrast childlike behaviours over adult behaviors. The childlike behaviors are what make up the infantilization ethos.
impulse over deliberation
feeling over reason
Certainty over uncertainty
Dogmatism over Doubt
Play over work
Pictures over words
Images over Ideas
Pleasure over Happiness
Instant gratification over long term satisfactions
Egoism over Altruism
Private over public
Narcissism over sociability
entitlement (right) over obligation (responsibility)
…
Physical Sexuality over erotic love
individualism over community
Ignorance over knowledge
As I read this for the first time, I felt like a few of these were apt descriptors of consumerism, particularly the ones I highlighted in bold. For his project Barber combines these traits down to three dualisms:
Easy over hard, simple over complex, and fast over slow. These dualisms are the core traits that define the infantilized ethos. Barber is effective in describing each dualism and providing evidence of them. One such example that Barber supplied (in this case an example of simple over complex), was when comedian Jon Stewart went on the CNN show Cross Fire and told the hosts that they were supposed to be doing real political discourse, not simple political hackery (pg. 96). Crossfire being held up as an example of over simplified political journalism. Barber also draws upon some novel observations, like movies and how their scenes on average have been getting shorter in movies, as a result of fast over slow. But, again, while I am sympathetic to Barber’s arguments, I’m not sure that example holds as much water as I’d like it to. Can we really assert that shorter movie scenes are a symptom of lower attention spans, a crushing need for swiftness? Maybe movies are better with shorter scenes, I’m not sure, an evolution of cinema art, or attention deficit disorder? Or maybe both?
The Eclipse of Citizens (Section 2)
This section contained a lot of beef and gives a good look at the consumer problem. When Barber talks about consumerism, he isn’t just talking about the over consumption idea, or the materialistic idea, his thesis is standing at the foot of capitalism and markets in general. Although, don’t think for a second his critique is a stalking horse for Marxism (or socialism, et al)- Barber is a defender of capitalism, hyper-consumerism is just a cancer that threatens capitalism and democracy. He has quite the intellectual arsenal to go after neoliberalism and the supremacy of markets. In short consumerism , exacerbated by neoliberalism has empowered citizens to regress into consumers. Consumers are infants, where as citizens are adults and have a sharp eye on the public. Consumers are obsessed with the private and are empowered to be narcissists. The ultimate aim of this tug-of-war, is the soul of democracy itself. Consumerism has empowered people just to look after themselves. In other words, the harrowing pursuit of self-interest, a categorical rejection of government and other ideas are incubated by consumerism.
Section 2 looks at how producers have captured the market. It looks at the bag of tricks and references quite a few ways in which we have slipped into a primordial state where we function as customers and have shirked our responsibilities as citizens. In short, democracy is imperiled by consumerism. Citizens have been put into a chrysalis, where they then emerge as a consumer, a mere customer. The consumer has been infantilized, concerned more about how many brand name t-shirts rather than problems confronting reality. Lots of things are on the table here, in some instances, we are shown how identity has instead by co-opted by consumer purchases. Identity is expressed through what we consume rather than more traditional ways of identity.
Barber offers many reasons to the consequences of growing shroud of consumerism, media, the fourth estate, now are just offering commodities. Barber references shows such as The Today Show which started off as a semi-serious news show, but now is more about infotainment (pg.181). To help support Barber’s point, I can think of a couple examples that illustrate the “infantilization” of our media: in this case a congress women is interrupted by breaking news of Justin Bieber being nicked by Florida police.
Another example might be the transition of the Jerry Springer show. To the surprise of many, Jerry Springer used to be a serious guy. His show was originally about politics and issues. Oliver North and Jesse Jackson were guest at some point, hard to believe when you consider what the show has devolved in. These serve as concrete examples of “dumbing” down of consumers and the emphasis of commercial appeal.
Moving on, one particular point that has stuck with me is the role of choice. Choice is the fertile crescent that is supposed to be alluring to the calls of consumerism. Barber points out that we may have, for all intents and purposes, infinite choice when it comes automobiles, or other consumer goods, so much choice that no mortal consumer could possibly make a rational choice (something that I felt when doing research for building a computer). As consumers we may have all these options on the menus but we lost out on crafting the menu. Barber references transportation and the fact that the auto industry has helped shape America into the auto-loving country that it is today. Try to take a high-speed rail across the country. Can’t do it. Some cities don’t have public transit or public transit that doesn’t work very well.
Barber also notes that markets have become totalitarian. Libertarians and the like are categorically suspicious of egregious government influence, yet, are totally blind to the tyranny of commercial expansion. The public square is gone, or even worse, replaced by the food court of the mall. Suburbs are noted for their shopping prowess. Barber argues that merchant activity has a place in society, but he disagrees with the high level of influence that markets have now.
This leads to the privatization of the citizen. We are being shaped to act in selfishly at the behest of corporations. This elucidation is very important and this where I like Barber’s work. The determinant to society is made clear. Our values, identity, and ultimate choice for direction as a society is lost when corporations have steered us into the seas of profits for too long.
The Fate of Citizens – Section 3
How to crawl up from this hole that we find ourselves in? I found it interesting that Barber critiqued the anti-consumption ‘movement’ in it’s inability to really stem consumerism. The Aesthetic movement, built on people personally opting out as best they can has failed to bring the muscle needed to counter consumerism. Barber also sets his sights on the magazine Ad Busters and some of the culture jamming stuff they have done. One culture jamming tactic Ad Busters has done has been selling ‘ethical shoes’ to compete with Nike and the likes. Ad Busters tries to stem consumerism with ethical consumerism. But Barber notes that either way the shoes aren’t going to change anything and even if the blackspot shoes are anti-commodities, in the end they are still commodities. Naomi Klein was also critical of Ad Busters in her book No Logo.
Barber notes a couple ways to improve what we have. Corporate citizenship and civic consumerism. Not a breakdown of markets, but organizing power within markets to effect change: boycotts for instance. Barber talks of “reel change”, a effort to get more the media (movies, TV, games, etc) to be more sensitive to moral issues and complexities.
Barber’s argument finishes off, not with a blue print, but with a calling for citizens to retake their democracies. He rightfully notes that such retaking cannot take place just in one particular country, the “flat earth” of today, or in other words, the globalized world we live in now, means that we all must rise up and challenge consumerism. Barber notes that we cannot do it alone, any meaningful change will have to be done with the intervention of the government.
This book was sharp, yet at times, a little daunting. The ~340 pages were packed densely and sometimes his writing wasn’t consistently lucid. Barber’s examples weren’t always on point, yet, I still think he’s putting rounds down range where he needs to be shooting. Barber descriptions of the high tide of consumerism is spot on and as an anti-consumer sympathizer, I can appreciate much of what Barber says. I liked how his work looked at markets in general and reminded us of the obligations that we have to our nation for the prosperous health of our democracy. I ultimately appreciate the angle that Barber is fighting from, his threat assessment cuts deep.
I would recommend Consumed for reading, check it out at your local library or find a used company somewhere!
Benjamin Barber’s sortie against consumerism is sure to reverberate from the glass tower offices of big box USA to the indolent consumer buying pre-peeled oranges (a real example of infantilization of society).
As way of general review, Barber’s main avenue of assault is by drive by shooting. Barber has a lengthy list of target and what he does is drive up, unloads his quick assault and then drives off to the next target, in other words, Barber’s pages are packed dense with many ideas and examples, but often he only spends a few sentences discussing them. His writing sometimes feels like being in a swamp, a humid, slow trotting affair, that takes time to get through. Other times Barber writing is lucid and reads like a car drives over fresh highway. In other words: Barber writes like a political theorist, fitting because he is a political scientist by trade. Barber divided his book into three sections: The Birth of consumers, the eclipse of citizens and the fate of citizens.
Barber’s main theme is fighting against the hyper-consumption in our contemporary era . Consumerism, according to Barber is the latest stage of capitalism, one where needs are no longer met by producers but our needs are being produced by producers. Advertising and marketing serve to enhance our wants, thus, producers can produce more. The greatest threat to producers, is not over-producing, but people not buying enough. An ad in 1926 from Life magazine had the header “GO AHEAD AND MAKE US WANT” (pg.291), which shows us the early recognition of advertising in society. This is the spine of his argument, to which Barber navigates various aspects of the rise of consumerism, the pass-over of the Protestant ethos to an infantilized ethos, the ascent of markets and the supremacy of the private, then Barber closes with some words on what can be done about this consumer melancholy.
Birth of consumers – section one
Barber uses the protestant ethos, one that he suggests has been the defining characteristic of the nascent United States (a ethos that values: self-restraint, delayed gratification, rationality, and order). The protestant work ethic has been a resounding reason for the victory of American style capitalism. I’ll interject, any work that is critical of markets, usually gets the typical vacuous responses, particularly among the right. However, while Barber is critiquing markets in our era, he is still an ardent defender of capitalistic virtues. This is evident when Barber discusses early capitalism, a system that allowed for needs to be fulfilled while providing the right incentives to do so. Our consumerist epoch however, is threatening to the virtues from early capitalism.
Infantilization is a big theme that Barber pursues in this book. Barber writes that in one sense, infantilization is a metaphoric word that describes the “dumbing” down and bamboozlement of the citizenry of the West (or perhaps even the world!), date raped into buying things they don’t need. In the other sense of the word infantilization describes how children and young adults are now targets of marketers and advertisers and the inverse: adults are being being manipulated into buying things that were originally for kids . Barber quotes conservative writer Joseph Epstein whilst making a larger point:
More and more adults are “locked in a high school of the mind, eating dry cereal, watching a vast quantity of television, hoping to make sexual scores” and generally enjoying perpetual adolescence, cut loose, free of responsibility, without the real pressures that life, that messy business, always exerts”. (pg. 16)
One of my first critiques would be Barber’s tangible examples when it comes illustrating the ever youthening of adults. Barber lists a few examples in which ways adults have been dumbed down to buy consumer goods more for children. I’ve noted a few other user reviews who take issue with some of the examples, but only because their activity was in the cross hairs. What Barber does, while doing his metaphorical drive-bys, is describe some product or activity, declare it as juvenile and drive on. One Goodreads reader was offended when Barber implied that Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter were juvenile books. I can probably agree with Barber, especially when it comes to Harry Potter, but, the issue here isn’t these specific examples. That’s not what matters, it’s how do we classify and perceive certain activities as childish or adult.
I think there were some low-hanging fruit that Barber could’ve grabbed to help make his case: like self described “nerds” buying toys (Look Sheldon bought a batman toy!), or the mass flocking to reliving the Nickelodeon nostalgia days, Sponge Bob anyone? But it doesn’t matter – I do for the record, think that Barber missed his target on some of these. He mentions video games for instance -and as a gamer and being cognizant of not trying to sound like that particular Goodreaders reader – but dumping the whole category as just childish play things, requires a bit more arguments, not pursued by Barber. Although while he makes such blanket statements early on, he does go on later to extol the virtues of some games like Sim City.
Barber does a better job describing infantilization by talking about infantilization in terms of psychological dyads (pg. 83). Barber quotes a list of psychological traits that contrast childlike behaviours over adult behaviors. The childlike behaviors are what make up the infantilization ethos.
impulse over deliberation
feeling over reason
Certainty over uncertainty
Dogmatism over Doubt
Play over work
Pictures over words
Images over Ideas
Pleasure over Happiness
Instant gratification over long term satisfactions
Egoism over Altruism
Private over public
Narcissism over sociability
entitlement (right) over obligation (responsibility)
…
Physical Sexuality over erotic love
individualism over community
Ignorance over knowledge
As I read this for the first time, I felt like a few of these were apt descriptors of consumerism, particularly the ones I highlighted in bold. For his project Barber combines these traits down to three dualisms:
Easy over hard, simple over complex, and fast over slow. These dualisms are the core traits that define the infantilized ethos. Barber is effective in describing each dualism and providing evidence of them. One such example that Barber supplied (in this case an example of simple over complex), was when comedian Jon Stewart went on the CNN show Cross Fire and told the hosts that they were supposed to be doing real political discourse, not simple political hackery (pg. 96). Crossfire being held up as an example of over simplified political journalism. Barber also draws upon some novel observations, like movies and how their scenes on average have been getting shorter in movies, as a result of fast over slow. But, again, while I am sympathetic to Barber’s arguments, I’m not sure that example holds as much water as I’d like it to. Can we really assert that shorter movie scenes are a symptom of lower attention spans, a crushing need for swiftness? Maybe movies are better with shorter scenes, I’m not sure, an evolution of cinema art, or attention deficit disorder? Or maybe both?
The Eclipse of Citizens (Section 2)
This section contained a lot of beef and gives a good look at the consumer problem. When Barber talks about consumerism, he isn’t just talking about the over consumption idea, or the materialistic idea, his thesis is standing at the foot of capitalism and markets in general. Although, don’t think for a second his critique is a stalking horse for Marxism (or socialism, et al)- Barber is a defender of capitalism, hyper-consumerism is just a cancer that threatens capitalism and democracy. He has quite the intellectual arsenal to go after neoliberalism and the supremacy of markets. In short consumerism , exacerbated by neoliberalism has empowered citizens to regress into consumers. Consumers are infants, where as citizens are adults and have a sharp eye on the public. Consumers are obsessed with the private and are empowered to be narcissists. The ultimate aim of this tug-of-war, is the soul of democracy itself. Consumerism has empowered people just to look after themselves. In other words, the harrowing pursuit of self-interest, a categorical rejection of government and other ideas are incubated by consumerism.
Section 2 looks at how producers have captured the market. It looks at the bag of tricks and references quite a few ways in which we have slipped into a primordial state where we function as customers and have shirked our responsibilities as citizens. In short, democracy is imperiled by consumerism. Citizens have been put into a chrysalis, where they then emerge as a consumer, a mere customer. The consumer has been infantilized, concerned more about how many brand name t-shirts rather than problems confronting reality. Lots of things are on the table here, in some instances, we are shown how identity has instead by co-opted by consumer purchases. Identity is expressed through what we consume rather than more traditional ways of identity.
Barber offers many reasons to the consequences of growing shroud of consumerism, media, the fourth estate, now are just offering commodities. Barber references shows such as The Today Show which started off as a semi-serious news show, but now is more about infotainment (pg.181). To help support Barber’s point, I can think of a couple examples that illustrate the “infantilization” of our media: in this case a congress women is interrupted by breaking news of Justin Bieber being nicked by Florida police.
Another example might be the transition of the Jerry Springer show. To the surprise of many, Jerry Springer used to be a serious guy. His show was originally about politics and issues. Oliver North and Jesse Jackson were guest at some point, hard to believe when you consider what the show has devolved in. These serve as concrete examples of “dumbing” down of consumers and the emphasis of commercial appeal.
Moving on, one particular point that has stuck with me is the role of choice. Choice is the fertile crescent that is supposed to be alluring to the calls of consumerism. Barber points out that we may have, for all intents and purposes, infinite choice when it comes automobiles, or other consumer goods, so much choice that no mortal consumer could possibly make a rational choice (something that I felt when doing research for building a computer). As consumers we may have all these options on the menus but we lost out on crafting the menu. Barber references transportation and the fact that the auto industry has helped shape America into the auto-loving country that it is today. Try to take a high-speed rail across the country. Can’t do it. Some cities don’t have public transit or public transit that doesn’t work very well.
Barber also notes that markets have become totalitarian. Libertarians and the like are categorically suspicious of egregious government influence, yet, are totally blind to the tyranny of commercial expansion. The public square is gone, or even worse, replaced by the food court of the mall. Suburbs are noted for their shopping prowess. Barber argues that merchant activity has a place in society, but he disagrees with the high level of influence that markets have now.
This leads to the privatization of the citizen. We are being shaped to act in selfishly at the behest of corporations. This elucidation is very important and this where I like Barber’s work. The determinant to society is made clear. Our values, identity, and ultimate choice for direction as a society is lost when corporations have steered us into the seas of profits for too long.
The Fate of Citizens – Section 3
How to crawl up from this hole that we find ourselves in? I found it interesting that Barber critiqued the anti-consumption ‘movement’ in it’s inability to really stem consumerism. The Aesthetic movement, built on people personally opting out as best they can has failed to bring the muscle needed to counter consumerism. Barber also sets his sights on the magazine Ad Busters and some of the culture jamming stuff they have done. One culture jamming tactic Ad Busters has done has been selling ‘ethical shoes’ to compete with Nike and the likes. Ad Busters tries to stem consumerism with ethical consumerism. But Barber notes that either way the shoes aren’t going to change anything and even if the blackspot shoes are anti-commodities, in the end they are still commodities. Naomi Klein was also critical of Ad Busters in her book No Logo.
Barber notes a couple ways to improve what we have. Corporate citizenship and civic consumerism. Not a breakdown of markets, but organizing power within markets to effect change: boycotts for instance. Barber talks of “reel change”, a effort to get more the media (movies, TV, games, etc) to be more sensitive to moral issues and complexities.
Barber’s argument finishes off, not with a blue print, but with a calling for citizens to retake their democracies. He rightfully notes that such retaking cannot take place just in one particular country, the “flat earth” of today, or in other words, the globalized world we live in now, means that we all must rise up and challenge consumerism. Barber notes that we cannot do it alone, any meaningful change will have to be done with the intervention of the government.
This book was sharp, yet at times, a little daunting. The ~340 pages were packed densely and sometimes his writing wasn’t consistently lucid. Barber’s examples weren’t always on point, yet, I still think he’s putting rounds down range where he needs to be shooting. Barber descriptions of the high tide of consumerism is spot on and as an anti-consumer sympathizer, I can appreciate much of what Barber says. I liked how his work looked at markets in general and reminded us of the obligations that we have to our nation for the prosperous health of our democracy. I ultimately appreciate the angle that Barber is fighting from, his threat assessment cuts deep.
I would recommend Consumed for reading, check it out at your local library or find a used company somewhere!
November 29, 2016
I am used to reading dense books so nothing in Barber's prose style put me off. My first reaction, reading this in October 2016, was just how smart Barber's ideas were and how perfect a time I had randomly chosen to read this book--just before and during the US election.
I have never seen an election that demonstrated more clearly how so many can be led astray so far and still feel they are doing 'the American' thing with whichever candidate they chose. We have allowed rampant consumerism to flourish in some very nasty ways that have transformed people into childish, selfish and ignorant versions of their former civil selves.
Barber basically asserts that once upon a time, perhaps during the earlier part of the 20th century, there was a focus on producing goods to meet the needs of people. During that time, big business was seen as a bit shady and perhaps not to be trusted (as opposed to the old, local manner of getting goods and services). So, the captains of industry created the first myth that we bought, which was that capitalism could be a very good thing for everyone and that businesses strengthened communities and upheld the moral values of good citizenship, reward for hard work and business integrity. This held until I think the ugly side started showing up in the late 60s, early 70s. But in the 80s, it was clear that people had most of what they needed and so marketers began to create needs (that were actually only wants) in the consumers' minds. This meant that people had to be made to feel that in fact they did not have everything they needed (as they may have in the early part of the century); in order for the marketers to succeed, they started to appeal to people in terms of socially relevant brand names and a luxurious lifestyle--that of a rock star or TV celebrity. Compared to such lives, the ordinary person's life paled in comparison. And people were not happy that they could not have the lifestyle of Oprah or Martha Stewart, for example. People became wildly hooked on fulfilling erroneous 'needs' and the wealth of the 80s fuelled a false sense of importance in individuals. Gone was the concept of a collective community benefitting from commerce. The 80s was a time of company buy-outs which were solely profit motivated, and put people last over shareholders dividends and quick pay-outs. No more long-term thinking; it was replaced by short term vision only. It is this paradigm shift created by marketing gurus that caused what Barber calls 'the infantilization' of consumers. In this view, people believe they are merely consumers and that they are in control, but in fact, they are easily manipulated and are actually being consumed themselves by a marketplace that thrives on their fear and insecurities.
I won't add more detail so as not to spoil this read for others. However, I will add that Barber cannot completely say that the current generation of Boomers are reverting to their childhoods in terms of their buying choices merely because they are manipulated into being infants. I seriously feel that it is precisely because we see through the fakiness of the present day world's values that we want to retrieve what worked well for us when we were younger and things were simpler. Maybe moving forward endlessly was not an improvement (I think he believes this, too). and maybe some of us are nostalgic because in fact things WERE better in the past than they are now.
I have never seen an election that demonstrated more clearly how so many can be led astray so far and still feel they are doing 'the American' thing with whichever candidate they chose. We have allowed rampant consumerism to flourish in some very nasty ways that have transformed people into childish, selfish and ignorant versions of their former civil selves.
Barber basically asserts that once upon a time, perhaps during the earlier part of the 20th century, there was a focus on producing goods to meet the needs of people. During that time, big business was seen as a bit shady and perhaps not to be trusted (as opposed to the old, local manner of getting goods and services). So, the captains of industry created the first myth that we bought, which was that capitalism could be a very good thing for everyone and that businesses strengthened communities and upheld the moral values of good citizenship, reward for hard work and business integrity. This held until I think the ugly side started showing up in the late 60s, early 70s. But in the 80s, it was clear that people had most of what they needed and so marketers began to create needs (that were actually only wants) in the consumers' minds. This meant that people had to be made to feel that in fact they did not have everything they needed (as they may have in the early part of the century); in order for the marketers to succeed, they started to appeal to people in terms of socially relevant brand names and a luxurious lifestyle--that of a rock star or TV celebrity. Compared to such lives, the ordinary person's life paled in comparison. And people were not happy that they could not have the lifestyle of Oprah or Martha Stewart, for example. People became wildly hooked on fulfilling erroneous 'needs' and the wealth of the 80s fuelled a false sense of importance in individuals. Gone was the concept of a collective community benefitting from commerce. The 80s was a time of company buy-outs which were solely profit motivated, and put people last over shareholders dividends and quick pay-outs. No more long-term thinking; it was replaced by short term vision only. It is this paradigm shift created by marketing gurus that caused what Barber calls 'the infantilization' of consumers. In this view, people believe they are merely consumers and that they are in control, but in fact, they are easily manipulated and are actually being consumed themselves by a marketplace that thrives on their fear and insecurities.
I won't add more detail so as not to spoil this read for others. However, I will add that Barber cannot completely say that the current generation of Boomers are reverting to their childhoods in terms of their buying choices merely because they are manipulated into being infants. I seriously feel that it is precisely because we see through the fakiness of the present day world's values that we want to retrieve what worked well for us when we were younger and things were simpler. Maybe moving forward endlessly was not an improvement (I think he believes this, too). and maybe some of us are nostalgic because in fact things WERE better in the past than they are now.
April 21, 2008
Benjamin Barber, well known for accurately predicting the current ideological (and I can't stress the word ideological enough) struggle between the movement of globalization and the reaction back by more traditional forces in Jihad vs. McWorld, writes a striking indictment of the capitalist system. Over the course of the book, Barber articulates the three components of the subtitle with extensive research and thorough analysis, referencing both John Dewey and Teen Vogue. His conclusions are much the same as the ones from Jihad vs. McWorld, so anyone looking for some radical new thinking from Barber with regards to solutions and the basis for this problem will be sorely disappointed.
That said, this book is a fantastic read with a lot of clever insight from Barber. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it, as I could see much of the content in my own day-to-day life since I work in a retail job. Even though it is a very relevant book, this isn't to say that the book is completely flawless. Actually, quite far from it.
While I was reading the book, I kept noting massive grammatical errors within the text, something that was disturbing seeing as I read a paperback version. In most situations, the errors were very unassuming and, most likely, things that people will skip past. But, I did see them and found them immensely distracting.
Additionally, I found the text to be somewhat didactic. The subtitle of the book makes it fairly clear what the text is about. But, Barber felt it necessary to continually remind the reader of what he was talking about. While in most situations, such an approach is appreciated, Barber felt the need to use the same language in describing what he was talking about each time. This need made reading the book painful from time to time.
As well, I would have liked Barber to articulate more solutions to the problems that he feels are in existence. While many of the solutions can be reached by personal reflection, Barber needs to articulate how these changes can play a positive role in actuating civic change.
While these are fairly substantial critiques about the text, I believe that the ideas within this book are enough to recommend it to anyone who needs to be reminded of the true powers of the pocketbook and the vote.
That said, this book is a fantastic read with a lot of clever insight from Barber. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it, as I could see much of the content in my own day-to-day life since I work in a retail job. Even though it is a very relevant book, this isn't to say that the book is completely flawless. Actually, quite far from it.
While I was reading the book, I kept noting massive grammatical errors within the text, something that was disturbing seeing as I read a paperback version. In most situations, the errors were very unassuming and, most likely, things that people will skip past. But, I did see them and found them immensely distracting.
Additionally, I found the text to be somewhat didactic. The subtitle of the book makes it fairly clear what the text is about. But, Barber felt it necessary to continually remind the reader of what he was talking about. While in most situations, such an approach is appreciated, Barber felt the need to use the same language in describing what he was talking about each time. This need made reading the book painful from time to time.
As well, I would have liked Barber to articulate more solutions to the problems that he feels are in existence. While many of the solutions can be reached by personal reflection, Barber needs to articulate how these changes can play a positive role in actuating civic change.
While these are fairly substantial critiques about the text, I believe that the ideas within this book are enough to recommend it to anyone who needs to be reminded of the true powers of the pocketbook and the vote.
Read
August 5, 2019The problem I have with this book is purely mechanical. I don't know if anyone else feels this way, but Benjamin Barber does not know how to write for readability AT ALL. Please take this example from the first chapter:
"Infantilization in this instrumentalist form signals the abandonment of Western Civilization's understanding (not necessarily shared by other cultures) of childhood as a precious legacy, and children - not yet capable of autonomy or self-defense- as ends in themselves whose happiness and well-being are the ultimate object of the public good."
This 49 word sentence is a grammatical monstrosity. It interrupts itself twice. There is a start of the sentence, interrupted by an unnecessary clause, resumes, interrupts itself again with another clause which is not necessary and ends with two linked clauses. Who edited this book? All of the prose in this book reads exactly like this. Sentence after sentence. Chapter after chapter. For 339 pages (and 42 pages of notes). Logically (please correct me if I'm wrong) it should be:
"Infantilization in this instrumentalist form signals the abandonment of Western Civilization's understanding of childhood as a precious legacy and children as ends in themselves whose happiness and well-being are the ultimate object of the public good."
Long, but comprehensible. I think my point here is similar to the opinion of some others who've reviewed this book. It is rambling. It is unfocused, and it pays absolutely no attention to whether or not you're able to listen and comprehend. If you think your point is important, then digestibility is important. Barber's slightly manic ignorance of this makes the text sound very unrelatable and pretty masturbatory.
I have to say, however, I do enjoy the thesis of the book. I think it's important that it is phrased in a way that doesn't take a sustained, pained effort to comprehend. It's worth understanding, but I'd look for some cliff notes from some more patient reader.
"Infantilization in this instrumentalist form signals the abandonment of Western Civilization's understanding (not necessarily shared by other cultures) of childhood as a precious legacy, and children - not yet capable of autonomy or self-defense- as ends in themselves whose happiness and well-being are the ultimate object of the public good."
This 49 word sentence is a grammatical monstrosity. It interrupts itself twice. There is a start of the sentence, interrupted by an unnecessary clause, resumes, interrupts itself again with another clause which is not necessary and ends with two linked clauses. Who edited this book? All of the prose in this book reads exactly like this. Sentence after sentence. Chapter after chapter. For 339 pages (and 42 pages of notes). Logically (please correct me if I'm wrong) it should be:
"Infantilization in this instrumentalist form signals the abandonment of Western Civilization's understanding of childhood as a precious legacy and children as ends in themselves whose happiness and well-being are the ultimate object of the public good."
Long, but comprehensible. I think my point here is similar to the opinion of some others who've reviewed this book. It is rambling. It is unfocused, and it pays absolutely no attention to whether or not you're able to listen and comprehend. If you think your point is important, then digestibility is important. Barber's slightly manic ignorance of this makes the text sound very unrelatable and pretty masturbatory.
I have to say, however, I do enjoy the thesis of the book. I think it's important that it is phrased in a way that doesn't take a sustained, pained effort to comprehend. It's worth understanding, but I'd look for some cliff notes from some more patient reader.
September 29, 2013
Barber tries to end on something vaguely resembling an optimistic note, although he might be hoping against hope; I don’t see a whole lot in his book to justify it. I don’t think it’s just my cynical nature, either. Any objective evaluation of Barber’s text would certainly find it long on elaborating problems, and short on identifying solutions. Even the solutions he does explore, he himself pokes holes in. It’s a bit difficult to believe he invests so many words in painting a horrifying portrait of the predicament in which he states we find ourselves as a result of the evolution of capitalism and the absence of true multinational governance, but then essentially places our future in the hands of capitalism and some new form of “global civic governance” we have yet to “discover or invent and then embrace.”
My final evaluation is that as a 'sounding of the alarm,' Barber succeeds very well, probably 4.5 out of 5 stars. Minor complaints: some of what he’s stating is fairly obvious (although he crystallizes it well); he overreaches a bit in a few instances, in my estimation. As a result, and given the relative dearth of viable solutions, he falls short of a true 'call to arms,' probably 3 or 3.5 stars from that perspective. I’ll settle on 4 stars as a final rating, which might be generous. But, I probably should err on the side of generosity, as Consumed has definitely inspired me to do some independent thinking and research, both to confirm and deny various points of his text. And, after all, if a book gets you thinking, well, there’s something to be said for that.
My final evaluation is that as a 'sounding of the alarm,' Barber succeeds very well, probably 4.5 out of 5 stars. Minor complaints: some of what he’s stating is fairly obvious (although he crystallizes it well); he overreaches a bit in a few instances, in my estimation. As a result, and given the relative dearth of viable solutions, he falls short of a true 'call to arms,' probably 3 or 3.5 stars from that perspective. I’ll settle on 4 stars as a final rating, which might be generous. But, I probably should err on the side of generosity, as Consumed has definitely inspired me to do some independent thinking and research, both to confirm and deny various points of his text. And, after all, if a book gets you thinking, well, there’s something to be said for that.
January 12, 2008
page 123: "At war with the the democratic history it once helped inaugurate, laissez-faire liberalism continues to mistake popular sovereignty for illegitimate coercion and to confound the public weal with the repression of liberty. It forgets the very meaning of the social contract, a covenant in which individuals agree to give up unsecured private liberty in exchange for the blessings of public liberty and common security."
The first 100 pages of this book were a little grating, with an overuse (in my opinion) of catchy terms like "infantalist ethos" and "McWorld." But after that, Barber gets into the real issues of maintaining civic sovereignty in the face of global consumer capitalism. Some excellent points, including on page 123 above and on page 332:
"...[T]he challenge for democrats today is to find a way to globalize democracy not within but among nations; which means to democratize globalization-- the ultimate challenge." Essentially the argument here is that we as citizens must maintain a sovereignty that supersedes our national barriers; that our current singular focus on simply the rights of individual governments ignores the pitfalls of a world in which these same governments can continue to commit injustice with impunity in the name of national identity. A little slow going at first, but absolutely recommended for global citizen activists everywhere.
The first 100 pages of this book were a little grating, with an overuse (in my opinion) of catchy terms like "infantalist ethos" and "McWorld." But after that, Barber gets into the real issues of maintaining civic sovereignty in the face of global consumer capitalism. Some excellent points, including on page 123 above and on page 332:
"...[T]he challenge for democrats today is to find a way to globalize democracy not within but among nations; which means to democratize globalization-- the ultimate challenge." Essentially the argument here is that we as citizens must maintain a sovereignty that supersedes our national barriers; that our current singular focus on simply the rights of individual governments ignores the pitfalls of a world in which these same governments can continue to commit injustice with impunity in the name of national identity. A little slow going at first, but absolutely recommended for global citizen activists everywhere.
February 7, 2008
I must preface this with the acknowledgement that I didn't finish this book. I didn't get beyond the first chapter.
I had issues with the author's reliance on technological gadgetry as proof of advertising's grip and an individual's reduction to "infantilized" state. I had issues with a symptom of this state: an adult reading Harry Potter or The Lord of the Rings.
The Lord of the Rings is inappropriate for adult reading consumption? I'm sure Tolkien would have found this fascinating. Harry Potter unfit for adults unless they've been successfully infantilized by the mass marketing machine?
I was curious if the author had ever read any of these books himself. I also contrast this attitude with an article a recent issue of Wired that calls science fiction the last home of philosophy.
As anyone can see by my reading list, I enjoy fantasy and science fiction literature. Some is brain candy, some is much more "serious". Frankly, I'm happy if there are books of a quality that teens AND adults can enjoy. Imagine if my children read nothing I found interesting through their childhoods.
I had issues with the author's reliance on technological gadgetry as proof of advertising's grip and an individual's reduction to "infantilized" state. I had issues with a symptom of this state: an adult reading Harry Potter or The Lord of the Rings.
The Lord of the Rings is inappropriate for adult reading consumption? I'm sure Tolkien would have found this fascinating. Harry Potter unfit for adults unless they've been successfully infantilized by the mass marketing machine?
I was curious if the author had ever read any of these books himself. I also contrast this attitude with an article a recent issue of Wired that calls science fiction the last home of philosophy.
As anyone can see by my reading list, I enjoy fantasy and science fiction literature. Some is brain candy, some is much more "serious". Frankly, I'm happy if there are books of a quality that teens AND adults can enjoy. Imagine if my children read nothing I found interesting through their childhoods.
July 10, 2014
I agreed with a lot of what this book had to say. To a certain extent. Yes commercialism/advertizing/marketing is pervasive and yes there has been a dangerous retreat away from the public sphere to the ubiquity of the private. I don't disagree with many of his overarching points. However, this is a very frustrating book. First, because he's a terrible writer. His book is largely repetitive and he never quite knows if he's trying to write a "serious, academic" book or if he's writing a popular book (inflecting his prose with useless exclamation points, out dated pop culture references and hardly funny jokey asides). Second, a lot of his argument boils down to the insufferable trope of "young people do things differently now and I don't like it." Sure, a lot of popular culture could be more sophisticated, but I think Barber is deluding himself to think that mass culture has ever been fully sophisticated. I would say that the internet and the culture it has created has done far more good to spread civic ideas and creativity than it has stifled these elements. There is a happy medium between saying civilization/culture is going to Hell and that anyone who denies it is like Voltaire's Dr. Pangloss. I think Barber raises some good points but misses the mark more often than not.
April 2, 2008
I thought this book was mildly entertaining and fairly informative. I mean: After much rumination, I postulated the content of this literary work to be flippantly recreative and averagely elucidative.
I have the same complaints I've had for all the non-fiction books I've read that cover "America sucks" topics. It's typically left wing and not written for average people. If you think you have an important message to get out to the public, something that could help remedy the ills of society, you better write it so people can understand it. I consider myself regular, and I understood most of the ideas and arguments being presented in the book, but I didn't know a lot of the words used. I get annoyed if I have to break out the dictionary for every other sentence. Ultimately, I didn't bother anymore. I just read through. Maybe I didn't get the message at all. Maybe I only heard what I wanted to hear. Who knows? I guess I'll go buy something and forget about it.
I found that I share most of the view points of the author, and found reinforcement for my beliefs, which may be why I enjoyed it.
I have the same complaints I've had for all the non-fiction books I've read that cover "America sucks" topics. It's typically left wing and not written for average people. If you think you have an important message to get out to the public, something that could help remedy the ills of society, you better write it so people can understand it. I consider myself regular, and I understood most of the ideas and arguments being presented in the book, but I didn't know a lot of the words used. I get annoyed if I have to break out the dictionary for every other sentence. Ultimately, I didn't bother anymore. I just read through. Maybe I didn't get the message at all. Maybe I only heard what I wanted to hear. Who knows? I guess I'll go buy something and forget about it.
I found that I share most of the view points of the author, and found reinforcement for my beliefs, which may be why I enjoyed it.
October 7, 2008
Dull criticism of a Neo-liberal market which targets and brainwashes children, infantilizes consumer and fabricates needs. Prime example of Neo-Marxism under the disguise as anti-consumerism.
Second review a year later:
After increasing my knowledge of libertarianism, consumerism and critical theory, I thought I should take a second look at a book which is widely acclaimed.
Barber writes a compelling polemic against privatization which I focused on. His argument is basically that no matter what troubles government gives us, the government can seek for equality while capitalism unbridled always creates losers and winners. Consumerism, privatization and infantilization leaves those losers to suffer while it reaps the benefits.
Reducing the government, like many conservatives, want to do takes away civic responsibility from the populace and hands it to business owners. Decreasing the public sector, eliminates the social contract which so many countries have based their entire society on, which would create an anarcho-capitalist society with no balances to keep the market in check.
Second review a year later:
After increasing my knowledge of libertarianism, consumerism and critical theory, I thought I should take a second look at a book which is widely acclaimed.
Barber writes a compelling polemic against privatization which I focused on. His argument is basically that no matter what troubles government gives us, the government can seek for equality while capitalism unbridled always creates losers and winners. Consumerism, privatization and infantilization leaves those losers to suffer while it reaps the benefits.
Reducing the government, like many conservatives, want to do takes away civic responsibility from the populace and hands it to business owners. Decreasing the public sector, eliminates the social contract which so many countries have based their entire society on, which would create an anarcho-capitalist society with no balances to keep the market in check.
January 28, 2014
All hail Benjamin R. Barber. King of the Curmudgeons and Hater of All Things Fun.
Solid book and solid argument but repetitive. Which is a shame because I'm pretty sure there are some kids on Mr. Barber's lawn that he desperately needs to go and yell at.
All kidding aside, the book is worth a read and I don't regret it in the least.
It's just the second bullet-point in the book's sub title that gives me pause and leaves a sour taste in my mouth.
1. Markets Corrupt Children (Okay, I'm listening)
2. Infantilize Adults (Okay, you're losing me)
According to Barber, consumerism has spawned a entire generation of man-boys and kidults. Oh the good old non-starter argument: "Kids these days. Well in my day, we walked up a hill to go to school in 12 inches of snow....yadda yadda yadda."
We can't all be dour, humorless automatons, Mr. Barber. Video games, movies, and text messaging are not the end of the world and railing against them just makes the author sound so... out of touch.
Solid book and solid argument but repetitive. Which is a shame because I'm pretty sure there are some kids on Mr. Barber's lawn that he desperately needs to go and yell at.
All kidding aside, the book is worth a read and I don't regret it in the least.
It's just the second bullet-point in the book's sub title that gives me pause and leaves a sour taste in my mouth.
1. Markets Corrupt Children (Okay, I'm listening)
2. Infantilize Adults (Okay, you're losing me)
According to Barber, consumerism has spawned a entire generation of man-boys and kidults. Oh the good old non-starter argument: "Kids these days. Well in my day, we walked up a hill to go to school in 12 inches of snow....yadda yadda yadda."
We can't all be dour, humorless automatons, Mr. Barber. Video games, movies, and text messaging are not the end of the world and railing against them just makes the author sound so... out of touch.
June 11, 2009
Barber has some great things to say about late capitalism's colonization of every part of life and the role of consumerism and advertising in the infantilization of modern life (I would argue that individualization is a more pernicious effect, but still, his point is valid). He is particularly on-point with his discussions of privatization and the decaying public sphere and the sovereignty of the liberal nation-state.
... but then, he lets his grumpy old man side take over. I mean, this guy HATES video games. and ipods. and movies aimed at kids. any time he started discussing specifics instead of larger theory/politics-oriented issues, I had to groan.
but then even his theory made me cringe sometimes-he has this bizarrely reactionary yearning for the "good ol' days" of producerist capitalism. late consumer capitalism, to barber, represents not the logical extreme of the free market, but some kind of aberration that capitalism needs to cleanse itself of.
... but then, he lets his grumpy old man side take over. I mean, this guy HATES video games. and ipods. and movies aimed at kids. any time he started discussing specifics instead of larger theory/politics-oriented issues, I had to groan.
but then even his theory made me cringe sometimes-he has this bizarrely reactionary yearning for the "good ol' days" of producerist capitalism. late consumer capitalism, to barber, represents not the logical extreme of the free market, but some kind of aberration that capitalism needs to cleanse itself of.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 133 reviews