A Defence of Commodity Fetishism

Where Freud attempts to heal the pain of the mind, Nietszche appears to give meaning to it. This dichotomy of science and passion appear completed by each of their works.Which makes me think of commodity fetishism. Nobody really needs meaning, or mental health to survive. These works of literature are themselves commodity fetishism.

Nietszche releases his book (albeit to a limited number of people) to fulfill percieved need of god, but if he were as selfish as his book would have us believe, he would never have released it at all, unless he would consider himself not selfish enough. And of course, what do people need to feel fulfilled at all? Let’s not forget Freud, his entire book was about making people able to overcome what before would be considered inconveniences, eccentricities, or darwin award winning behaviour. All sympathy to those with such problems, the point is that previous ages would have forced the person to either deal with their problem, or they be removed from society, in either case solving the problem. It was a bad deal, no doubt about it, but it’s not as bad a deal as we would percieve it to be today, I imagine back then they’d just accept it.

And if these things are commodity fetishism same as our need for hundreds of pairs of shoes, perhaps we need to reconsider what is necessary. It’s not necessary that we have hundreds of pairs of shoes anymore than we live happy, fulfilling lives, but they certainly are nice to have.

All this makes me think of the painting below. The picture is of the Me devil Land of Cockaigne, (pronounced the same as the drug). In the Medieval period, people fantasized about this mythical land as having a great deal of food. The picture you see depicts men, so full, they have no more desire than to lay there on his back.

Now, we have enough food to make that a possibility. More than necessary in fact. But now, no amount of food seems sufficient to fill the gaping hole in our soul. Forget food actually, there are thousands of authors writing thousands of books a day, and yet we still haven’t found the one ‘answer’ we’re looking for, in fact it’s harder to find than ever, because now unlike then, it’s hidden in a sea of knowledge.

In the middle ages, you didn’t really need that many books. In fact, you were likely to have had only one book read to you if you were in the middle ages (remember if you were in the middle ages you were most likely illiterate and could not read it yourself), that is of course the Bible. And understanding that book was a distant second to the importance of food.

Rather than making do with what we have, we now need more information than we could ever consume.

But finding a satisfactory explaination as to why we should continue to feed ourselves or get out of bed every day is a purpose in itself. I am not sure we will ever find that kind of satisfaction that the man in the Land of Cockaigne enjoys forever (barring drugs) but I do believe the pursuit in itself is necessary.

Which brings me to my point; commodity fetishism (if we extend it to art and literature) isn’t a means to an end, but rather a means of living. People say you can’t buy happiness and it’s true, it won’t get us to the Land of Cockaigne so long as we live (unless you believe heroin will get you there), but it will bring variation that we need to survive, because if it’s one thing that the human race has become accustomed to in modernity; it’s adaptability, and I believe it’s more fulfilling than the Land of Cockaigne could ever be.

Quick fix anyone?

Tonight’s discussion really got me thinking about how our western society is all about the quick fix and the magic pill to cure all ills. If you’ve got a headache, take an asprin; depressed, take prozac. We’ve got a multi-million dollar industry that does nothing but think of new things they can put in pill form.  It’s as though people don’t want to admit that there are things out there that they don’t understand. Anything that can’t be understood must be surpressed by self-medicating.

I wonder if I am the person I am today because I didn’t get put on pills as a child. My parents let me experience childhood as I wanted to. No Ritalin for me. I think that they helped me get through the tough times, and I think that part of what led me to be the creative person I am today has to do with the fact that my impulses were nurtured rather than shot down. If I wanted to paint, they bought me a watercolour set, if i wanted to play piano, they got me lessons. (Not that we had money, just that my creative instincts were indulged). I spent 1/2 my life at the library curled up with a book.

 I stated in class that I don’t agree with Freud. While I still think that he was obsessed with genitalia, I do appreciate the fact that he was working to get people off medications like lithium. I know that while I was on anti-depressants I felt mildly better, but it wasn’t until I went to actually talk to someone that I got better completely. It’s obvious to me that there isn’t such a thing as a quick fix, no matter what modern society may think.

I guess I have Freud to thank for that afterall.

Annaliese

A normal modern society?

There are several topics that we have discussed that i continually find myself attempting to configure and relating it to myself and my life. The most recent was brought up in today’s discussion of what it means to be “normal”. From what i understood the definition of being normal is to be standard, regular, free from any disorder, healthy, etc. But is that really possible?

I personally think the term should be thrown out the window and we use the term to alienate the things we dont understand. And really with every new discovery or major break through, whether being with the body, in society, or relating to the world itself, doesnt the definition of what it is to be normal change? So why do we have such an urge to want to be something that we can never keep up with?

I think i would rather refer to myself as modern before considering myself normal. Not only do I think normal is non-sense, but even if it did have implications of truth behind it, it’s boring!

What I noticed as a commonality between Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud, is their attempts at self- realization, and I think this is more important than what the majority concerns itself with and trying to be a part of this “normal” population group.

-Jessica Hay

Making Sense of Freud

So we’re coming to notice within this course that modernity seems to be a time of great questioning and seeking of answers. We’ve now seen with Marx, Nietzsche and Freud a personal attempt to organize their world in an attempt to make sense of it. Though all three have lived before us, this tendency to want to “make sense of the world” is something that has not changed. We’re continuously trying to find meaning in everything; from something as grande as the existence of God or the formation of the Earth, to why we have hair on our chest (not personally speaking, of course). Questioning is a good thing. With questions and answers comes progress… and further uncertainty as well, i suppose.  While I may not believe all of what Marx, Nietzsche and Freud present, we must be appreciative that all three of these men propose their theories in attempt to make things make sense.

I think I will adopt this idea of Freud’s unconscious as I also agree that there exists an underlying ”storage space” for thoughts, issues, memories, impluses, ideas, etc., to live before being filtered to the outside, “conscious” world. This idea of the existance of an unconscious is a brilliant explaination for things like dreams finding their way into our conscious. Its fun to think about. Wouldn’t it be interesting to take a peek into our unconscious and see what is hiding in there? Oh the things you’d find…

I believe the act of being creative can be considered a glimpse into the unconscious. Producing art requires going somewhere deeper than yourself. Creating art, in itself, has the ability to be extremely healing. It has the ability to trigger inside of you something so powerful and personal. Not only do I believe it can trigger the repression sitting silently within your unconscious, but I believe it can heal that repression in the process. I propose art as a form of psychoanalysis.

Heather Kelly

Today’s seminar was really interesting.  About halfway through the discussion I realized what makes Freud “modern” (at least, in my head).  While others of his generation repressed sexual desires and refused to acknowledge them, Freud attempted to uncover them to the point that he exposed the strange, hidden, often shameful and occasionally excruciating parts of ourselves, those experiences that affect our lives so strongly yet are so often glossed over or not mentioned due to their disturbing nature.  While Freud does not exactly accept the messiness and inexplicable, illogical perversity that is human sexuality (or human life in general, I guess) he at least is willing to look it in the face and try to figure out why it’s there. 

For me, the texts we’ve read share a common theme of piecing together a Whole human being without the benefit, or distraction (depending on your view) of a religious interpretation.  Although rather secular, the views of Marx, Nietzsche and Freud are all unique in that they go above and beyond what is accepted and expected of human beings, arguing that there could be more, that we have potential.  Each man’s philosophy leaves room for change.  Each work underscores the idea that human beings at their very essence are created by other human beings and by our own minds… and are thus malleable.  One does not have to accept his lot, or believe that he is the way he is, forever, by divine command… one can change the world in which he lives, become prosperous, break free of social bonds.  One can aspire to achievements no one has conceptualized before.  One can confront those murky, off-putting, disgusting, frightening or painful aspects of one’s personality and either resolve them or use them to make oneself into a happier, healthier and well-adjusted person.   

Although I believe in a higher power, I do admit that the above interpretation of each work is inspiring.  I don’t believe that one has to abandon belief in a higher power, or in religion, to truly be “modern” and yet I think secularism is seen as an aspect or perhaps a symptom of modernity.  The positive side of this is that universal personal, individual potential (and therefore responsibility) are brought to the forefront.  I think these qualities are unique to the “modern age” as well 

Aly

PS.  I’ll tell Uncle Russ you guys said hi… but I won’t say why.

Accepting the Unknowable

  

            Freud’s “The Unconscious” represents Modernity to me in that it is the tacit acknowledgement that our collective experience is driven by the intangible, and therefore, can not be fully known.

             In a simultaneous, parallel development, nuclear physics was starting to postulate that our physical existence was governed by bizarre laws that stressed relativity and uncertainty principles that tell us we can not observe a phenomenon without altering somehow. The limitations of the Newtonian view of physics were being acknowledged. The Universe was now a place filled strange particles and electromagnetic forces. Physics gave us the atomic bomb; Freud gave us Fetishes. 

    Freud gave us another layer that removed the “rational” explanations for our actions, and tethered us to seminal childhood events. Mired in this analysis were the same trappings that the Physicists wrestled with: did being cognizant of a condition skewer the perception of another characteristic? How could a psychoanalyst hope to objectively study a patient without dragging their own baggage into it?  

    Freud’s Unconsciousness is a world that both doomed us to a mechanistic existence controlled by our own, autonomous, personal shadow worlds and elevated us to the stream-of-consciousness plateau where ideas are transmitted as images unhampered by semantics, or syntactical rules.  

    For the arts though, many doors were opened. The acceptance of deeper, hidden meaning meant that artists could articulate ideas in their mediums that could be “received” in many different ways, depending on the whims of the recipient. How many theses have been written about Finnegan’s Wake? How many times can you listen to the Velvet Underground’s “Murder Mystery” and hear a different plot each time?

Sean

Freud and our Roots

In talking around our discussion of psychoanalysis and how we can link Freud to the medication hysteria that exists today, I got to thinking along a similar tangent – Freud is very much a part of how the current ‘You’ culture has developed.  I think it’s difficult to dispute that we live in a ‘you’ culture.  Greater access to information, an emphasis on living happily (as we said, a fear of being uncomfortable) are all very much factors that contribute to this culture.  We’re intended to take time for ‘you’, know you’re own goals, don’t let ourselves get tied down or let others define us.

 All well and good, certainly.  Freud’s ideas have certainly contributed to this, in their emphasis on self deconstruction and not defining us as simply beings that receive-and-respond, but with our own complexes that others must consider (which is certainly the argument being made, if not explicitly stated).

I’m also intrigued by this notion of subjectivity (regarding words, artisitic impressions, etc) and its further implications in terms of nationality in a highly nationalistic period.  It begs the question of the use of subjectivity and its limits, especially in the face of the human tendency to categorize and separate.  I’m not one to absolutely condemn categorization – as ugly as it can turn, it can also produce a tremendous amount of good.  People are drawn to ‘typing’ themselves traditionally, allying themselves with a group or ideology they feel is the best, which imparts a sense of pride and community.  Subjectivity, the kind that Freud says people labour under (yet urges us to reject when viewing others) is not a finite virtue; it must have it’s limits, as should objectivity in some cases.

-Steve Woodhead

Morality

Morality
I want to talk about the idea of Good and Evil, or Morality. Nietzsche has asserted that morality must be overcome, that one must move beyond the current conception of good and evil. What’s more, he teaches that religion must be overcome as well, since religion is the source of much of society’s conception of Good and Evil. God, to Nietzsche, is dead and with him has gone popular ethics. From my understanding, Nietzsche wants a new code of ethics, one that is a departure from the “mob’s” current idea of morality. But how does one understand what has value without a conception of something absolute like God and furthermore without an authority like God. In other words, if there is no one defining morality, who transcends humankind, who has the right to define it? This question is not a new one, it was asked by C.S. Lewis in “The Abolition of Man”, among others.
Indeed there is a problem here, for as Nietzsche says: “much that this people deemed good was for another a source of scorn and shame.” An example of this lies in Science: Social Darwinism says that morality comes from Evolution; it is part of our makeup and needed for preservation and survival. Huxley, Darwin’s bulldog, disagreed vehemently with this view saying that our natural instincts work as much for evil as they do for good and therefore you cannot find a basis for morality in evolution. Rather, our instincts must be fought against; we must be like George Costanza and make a religion out of opposites.
The question at the heart of this debate is whether humans are inherently Good or Evil, IE. do we have a proclivity towards moral actions or immoral actions. If we are Good, than we can define morality, if not, we are hopeless without someone who is Good defining it for us. We need the “Over Human” or we need to bring God back into the picture. It seems to me, Nietzsche saw the need for this in teaching about the Over Human, and by making the Over Human the new law maker, he has only replaced one God with another, one of his contrivance.

Jason DeRoche

The Search for the Soul

I’ve become obsessed with the word soul.  I am in equal parts facinated, confused and terrified with it.  Is it an energy outside of my body?  An intrinsic part of who I am? A word constructed to help give meaning to existence?  With mild fear of being seen as having lost my mind, I confess that I think my soul has been speaking to me. 

What has it been saying you ask?  Well thats the tricky part.  I think it speaks to me through my dreams leaving the uncoding work up to me.  This brings up an intresting question:  What (if any) is the difference between the soul and the unconscious? I think of the soul as a core element of who I am that seeks meaning for my existence where as my unconscious seems to be my hidden desires and fears.  For me to find my own balance in life I think my soul has to be set free from my subconscious.  I think that means being able to actually live my life as though I am dreaming (in terms of openess and curiousity to the world around me)   

Greek lyric Poet Pindar suggests that, “the soul sleeps whilst the limbs are active, but when man is sleeping the soul is active and reveals in many a dream an award of joy or sorrow coming near.”  If your soul could speak to you what do you think it would say?  How do you think it would find meaning?  I read today that the human soul thrives on value.  In a modern world with highly subjective values I think its essential for people to determine what that value means to them.  Perhaps a search for the soul is a journey that can help find some of the answers as to how we can find meaning in our lives.

-Aaron Berger

Exciting lecture

If you’d like to know more about visual representation in the modern period and how it has been used in revolutionary art movements like surrealism, come and see my lecture at Rodman Hall this Tuesday (January 29) at 7pm. It’s free! And it might be good prep for our evening of surrealism on March 5.

– Prof. Steer

Let’s see the authors!

Thanks to all of you for a great class on Wednesday and for your first blog posts! If you didn’t sign your name to your post, please do so, so that I might give credit to the right people. It’s easy. Just click the little edit button under the title of your post, type in your name, click “save” and voila. Oh, and if you add tags to your post, people from the wider world might read it and even comment. Exciting!

Remember that this week we are reading Nietzsche’s Thus Spoke Zarathustra, all of “First Part” and a portion of “Fourth and Last Part,” from number 13. On the Superior Human until the end of the book. Page numbers, according to the Oxford edition stocked in the bookstore, are 9-68 and 249-287. There are explanatory notes at the end that may be useful in sorting out Nietzsche’s numerous references.Happy reading!

Nietzsche by Edvard Munch, 1906.

I asked you to look at Manet’s Olympia for next week, but I think we will leave that until we read Baudelaire. Finally, I have changed the syllabus / reading schedule. Take a look.

– Prof. Steer

Won’t Get Fooled Again

Modernity, is the reaction people have to things that are new and different, modernism. Some look to it with fear, and some look to it with hope. Fear that what is now or what will be is wrong, and hope that the future will bring righteousness . Often, they require a complete reboot of society, but even as their methods require this, they consider it part of a so called ‘natural’ continual change, in keeping with the way we should be.

The reason for this, I believe, is that with the coming of technology, things that could remain consistent for centuries and never matter except to the elites no longer are so. They are constantly changing, and we struggle to look for something to hold on to. A hundred years ago, it was far from ok to be black, unheard of to be gay, and unthinkable to be atheist, and now?

We have no sense of concrete morality anymore. We hated the wrong people before, and apparently those people that we thought were great for hating those people a hundred years ago are now bastards. Today we hate terrorists, but tomorrow they could be freedom fighters, still further in the future they could be considered terrorists again.

Three hundred years ago, peasants would have been ignorant of all this. Isolated in their villages with little to no contact with anyone in the urban community, news would be found in rumour, and few even knew how to read. Even academics would study only the other geniuses in the world that had existed in that point, which due to lack of public education, would likely be limited. They would likely never have to deal with the constantly shifting ground of morality, their short lives would be filled with work and sleep.

To me, modernity is a constant scientific, political, and artistic revolution, never ending in it’s cycle, now we just have a name for it. I can’t help but think of “Won’t Get Fooled Again” by the Who.

-Josh Long