Zipes argues that while our culture promotes freedom of choice, liberty and independence, our market, and the drive to make money, limits and even controls our freedom of choice. Quoting Zipes, "Here I should like briefly to demonstrate how our free time is no longer free but regulated by culture industries that have a cast impact on our schools. Bluntly speaking, our activities in the movie theaters, sports, and schools are all governed by the same prevailing corporate interests" (pg 13).
I feel that Zipes is giving a one-sided argument. It could very well be possible that corporations market products that only cater to the needs and desires of the public. Supply and demand seems like a simple enough idea in terms of the public demanding and the market supplying. Yes, prices may fluctuate, but does our freedom? Who is really controlling who?
He also claims that our culture reinforces the corporations control over us by basing our worth as human beings on our material processions: what books we read, what movies we see, etc. And this conditioning process starts when we are just children. Quoting Zipes, "Of course, the child would have long been seduced to see the film. He or she would be nobody unless the film were seen (pg 13)."
I personally don't remember feeling an insatiable need to go see particular movies as a child. I don't recall feeling lowly or underprivileged if I didn't see the popular movie at the time. Perhaps there's been immense change in the last 10-15 years. Perhaps I was a different type of child, (more concerned with riding bikes with my neighborhood friends and baking cookies with my grandma, instead of worrying about the toys in my room or the show on the TV) but I seriously doubt that.
Have times changed? Is Zipes right? I feel like his argument is stretched, and sometimes goes in circles. What is your opinion?
Monday, January 29, 2007
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)