The ‘century of the self’ is a phrase that has passed into the language to describe the 20th century and the awakening of the consumer society. While the 19th century had been dominated by invention and creation – the Industrial Revolution and all that went with it – not till the 20th did it become clear how these massive forces could be directed for maximum value.

Big business on both sides of the Atlantic eagerly tapped into the ideas of Sigmund Freud and others about how the mind of the individual could be manipulated – how he or she could be persuaded to believe that they really wanted and/or needed a particular product and go out and buy it.

Advertising wasn’t new: the idea of persuading people to buy things is as old as the hills. But marketing was new, and it grew quickly. This was a discipline that sought to bring a scientific approach to the management of desire. The intention wasn’t to study what people wanted, but to make them want what industry and government wanted them to want.

The powers of the state, like the powers of industry, quickly saw the opportunities for political advantage that mass control could bring.

There are people who genuinely believe that the triumph of the self in the mass market is the apogee of democracy in action, that modern consumerism is the natural outworking of a free and capitalist society. The antidote to such beliefs can be found in a four-part documentary, called The Century of the Self, made by BBC TV 10 years ago.

Producer Adam Curtis probes consumerism and democracy, and the use of Freud’s theories to manipulate public opinion and perception in the United States and Britain throughout the 20th century.

The series argues that power has not flowed towards the people through consumerism, but in precisely the opposite direction. The thing is, we don’t realise that most of our decisions and plans are made under the influence of sophisticated marketing techniques. We ‘make up our mind’ about something, but our mind was persuaded to reach that decision by other forces of which we are only dimly, if at all, aware.

If our secret desires and ambitions can be tapped into in this way, if our minds can be controlled by others, it suggests a giant global conspiracy to control society. That’s the stuff of science fiction, but incisive books like Animal Farm and 1984 make it all seem too believable and touch a deep nerve of unease in all of us.

One of the architects of mass consumerism, Edward Bernays, who was a nephew of Freud, believed mass control was a good thing and an extension of the democratic process. He said:  “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.  We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized.” 

The Century of the Self is available to download or on DVD. Anyone tempted to agree with Bernays should watch it before making up their mind … or has someone else already made up their mind for them?

References

The Century of the Self http://www.youtube.com

http://www.brainpickings.org

It is arguable to claim that we live in an age of mass-produced American culture. Indeed, when studying the cultural products that we in Canada so often consume, many of them are created by American corporations, or at least are influenced by the American way of life, or more colloquially, the American dream. Mass culture theorists who operate under the paradigm of “liberal” mass culture theory would argue that mass culture lowers the general populations standards of good taste, therefore make them more receptive to mass produced culture, and more likely to ignore “high” forms of society and art. If we are to believe that mass culture motivates the people to consume lower forms of art and culture, then Americanisation is arguably an incredible threat to high culture. Mass Culture theorists would also argue that mass audiences are easily manipulated, and thus much more receptive to communications such as advertisements, which exist profusely within American culture.

The status of cultural objects comes into play in a large way in liberal culture theory as well. This viewpoint defines cultural objects in a new light under mass consumerism: as products, manufactured by corporations and expected to generate returns. Due to this commodification of culture under Americanisation, it becomes possible for people to begin to define themselves and their cultural standpoint through the products they buy. In the words of Strinati, society begins to “construct [their image] with the popular cultural materials available, rather than [constructing it themselves.]” This point of view also argues that the creative agency of the populace is incredibly weakened by the ease in which cultural products are available. No longer is it necessary to define oneself through cultural creativity; instead the commodities are available to you and you simply purchase your cultural views from a department store. Mass culture theory exemplified “the concept of a manipulated and pacified audience susceptible to the ideological appeals of advertising and consumerism” that is an age-old suggestion of Marxist and structuralist theories. This idea of being manipulated and controlled by the media and mass culture is far from gone today, with many groups in the current world being involved in increasing awareness of the power of advertising: Adbuststers Magazine, for example.

However, in contrast to the pessimistic model of popular culture provided by mass culture theory, there exists a body of thought that defines popular culture and Americanisation in a much more positive way. Instead of arguing that mass culture limits the ability for people to define themselves, scholars such as Hebdige have proposed that cultural products actually help us define ourselves within our society. And, not only does the volume of these products allow for an incredible potential amount of diversity within a mass culture society, but it also allows citizens to communicate their cultural standpoint to each other in a language that is more or less understood by the rest of society. Trends and cultural “labelling” are a good example of such a phenomenon.

If one were attempting to be part of a cultural clique such as (what is known in popular culture to be) the Goths, there are certain cultural rules that one has to obey, such as (stereotypically) enjoying heavy metal music and wearing a lot of black clothing. Without mass consumerist society, and the availability of cultural products to the bulk of the western world, this sort of cultural identification via style and music would not be possible. Instead, it can be argued that the individual cultures created by each person would be stifling to social networks. Without cultural products to help define ourselves in a way the rest of society can understand, it would be far more difficult to interact in a social group with other people, especially in a society as racially diverse as Canada. The cultural industries provide to society an ability to build an image that, while not entirely ones own, can be highly individualized, and allow us to more easily identify with like-minded individuals.

While it is more likely that the bulk of society will argue that mass consumerism, Americanisation, and the mass production of culture are negative attributes in our modern society, it is my opinion that this is not that case. While it is necessary to concede that pseudo-individualism is part of popular culture and not necessarily a very positive one, it is also important to realize that it is an excellent facilitator of social roles. Cultural products make it far easier for people to identify with one another, which is arguably the most positive trait of a mass consumerist society. The elitist point of view that high culture is being ignored in favour of popular culture arguably omits this powerful point. It is likely that popular culture and mass consumerism have reached their pinnacle of popularity not only because of the ease of acquiring these products and the way in which advertising motivates such consumption; but in the way it makes it possible for everyone to achieve some sort of cultural identification.

In conclusion, while Americanisation and mass produced cultural products can hurt society through the degradation of appreciation for high art and through the production of pseudo individualism, there are may positive points related to mass society that make it a necessary part of our globalizing world. The ability for a cultural affinity to be so readily available to so many people makes it possible to identify with individuals that share the same cultural niche. This ability provides a much easier way to create social circles and to define oneself in a method which society can understand and appreciate.