Manipulation of Needs: How Capitalism Turned Maquiavelic
by This article deals with the “Manipulation of needs” thesis, i.e. that the capitalist system manipulates our basic needs by forcing us to engage its structures in order to meet our basic necessities.
The Manipulation of Needs Thesis thus possesses some attractive explanations of social reproduction. It is focused not in ideology but in the material resources that are available to the individual to act. The Thesis avoids entering into eternal discussions about the unconscious and consciousness and depicts an impressive view of our contemporary world being dominated by a capitalist class which seldom uses its authority or coercive capabilities; it is unnecessary to use them (and more expensive) if this domination mainly occurs through a serious but not apparent threat over the individual survival. The Manipulation of Needs Thesis could be simply enunciated as an ultimatum: if you want to survive you must agree with capitalist structures and therefore sell your time and your entire life in order to meet those mentioned basic needs.
The only weakness that, in my opinion, can be detected through a quiet reading of this thesis is the general assumption of the individual being good by nature. The individual is likely to use his creativity not only for beneficial purposes, but for selfish and economically profitable ends, which means that those individuals should be someway banned (because they would bring back capitalism) and, therefore, we would be presented with another kind of restrictions of autonomy.
Apart from that, it is possible to guess a fairly utopian view of the individual left to his/her own intention and creativity. It seems that in that utopian situation work would not be necessary or at least it would occupy only a little part of an individual life. I think these suppositions obey to a Marxist focus on working class and the rise of more and more efficient technology. We must remember how Marx obviated middle-class and the evolution to a labour market based in services and not in industries anymore.
However, the whole thesis acquires a great strength in dissecting the individual attachment to material reality more than to the unconscious or an always doubtful ideology.
Footnotes:
[1] Lodziak, C.: “Manipulating Needs. Capitalism and Culture” (1995)
[2] Gorz, A.: “Critique of Economic Reason” (1989)
[3] Lodziak, C., op. cit. p. 1
[4] Lodziak, C., ibidem
[5] Marcuse, H.: “Eros and Civilization” (1966)
[6] Marcuse, H., ibidem
[7] Gorz, A., op. cit. p. 1
[8] Gorz, A., ibidem
Liked it
