Feminism comes to mean sexiness as lionized by the popular culture. And women who buy into these commercialized images of liberation are choosing style over substance. When fighting oppression means buying the right type of clothes, or watching pornography and "feminist" TV programs like Xena or Desperate Housewives, politics becomes irrelevant.
This has been an essential formulation of the counter-culture since the 1960s, when wearing jeans or long hair was a political statement. In the last 40 years, however, fashion and other trappings of pop consumerism have served no one better than the companies who learned to use '60s iconoclasm as a marketing tool. The Revolution has been commoditized.
This discussion makes a lot of sense, especially when we consider the work of authors Joseph Heath and Andrew Potter, who thoroughly trash the counter-culture and its critique of consumerism in their book Nation of Rebels.
The authors say that the tired popular critique of consumerism is that it requires conformity: "The central idea is quite simple. Capitalism requires conformity to function correctly. As a result, the system is based upon a generalized system of repression. Individuals who resist the pressure to conform therefore subvert the system, and aid in its overthrow."
These old counter-cultural theories include a sexual aspect, described by Heath and Potter as a misguided form of liberation from the repressive capitalist regime: "Capitalism requires sexual repression. In its drive to stamp out individuality, capitalism denies the full range of human expression, which includes sexual freedom. Because sexuality is erratic and unpredictable, it is a threat to the established order. This is why some people thought the sexual revolution would undermine capitalism."
As Heath and Potter go on to demonstrate, however, this critique points to the exact opposite of what drives consumerism: the desire to be cool, unique, and rebellious.
"What we need to see is that consumption is not about conformity, it’s about distinction. People consume in order to set themselves apart from others. To show that they are cooler (Nike shoes), better connected (the latest nightclub), better informed (single-malt Scotch), morally superior (Guatemalan handcrafts), or just plain richer (bmws).The problem is that all of these comparative preferences generate competitive consumption. “Keeping up with the Joneses,” in today’s world, does not always mean buying a tract home in the suburbs. It means buying a loft downtown, eating at the right restaurants, listening to obscure bands, having a pile of Mountain Equipment Co-op gear and vacationing in Thailand. It doesn’t matter how much people spend on these things, what matters is the competitive structure of the consumption. Once too many people get on the bandwagon, it forces the early adopters to get off, in order to preserve their distinction. This is what generates the cycles of obsolescence and waste that we condemn as “consumerism.”
Levy approaches this analysis when she describes the pressures on young women, as young as middle school girls, to compete with others to be the "sluttiest" and "skankiest" in order to be cool. Young women will give up sex to men in order to acquire or "buy sex," much like the women on the HBO series Sex and the City acquire shoes and other trappings of the consumer lifestyle.
Article comments
1 - Bob A. Booey
Wow, great job, John. I'm very impressed -- I'll keep my eyes out for you other writing on this site. This should definitely be a Pick of the Week.
And you're reading some great stuff.
That is all.
2 - Temple Stark
Impressive.
I forgot everything I read with this ending though: See more thoughts at count dookie.
3 - Temple Stark
Books Editor Pat picked this his pick of the week. Go HERE to find out why. and thank you very much.
4 - fnord
>>> Being able to have an orgasm with a man you don't love, or ... that is not liberation. ... the problem is: You're not going to elect Carrie to the Senate or to run your company.
(Sigh) The same old error in thinking: "they're doing A, therefore nothing is happening with doing B." They're having more fun with sex, and so that means there won't be more women in the Senate or at the top of businesses. Hellooooo ... people can affect more than one issue at a time, especially when one issue is "recreational", shall we say, compared to the other. Male senators, and business leaders, apparently do not have to give up a strongly-expressed sexuality to be where _they_ are, so why should women?
It's the usual advocacy-fallacy of "No, don't do that!! Do this!!" Helloooo ... people can do *both* 'that' *and* 'this'.
5 - Tara NY
Everything in moderation. As part of this so-called sexually liberated generation the fact that women lose control of their sexuality by believing it is all that empowers them rings all too true. It does not mean we should give up our right to be sexually empowered, but that we have an obligation to our minds as well. Being healthy and loving life should not require a compromise of mind over body. Having fun times does not mean a person is happy overall. Having been there in every sense, and knowing that most men hardly enjoy my intellect as much as my face and my figure, I know that this well named "raunch feminism" is a disgrace to the ideals of feminism altogether. If this is how women are convincing themselves to become feminists once again, then I suggest we revert back to Betty Friedan. Her brand of radical allowed women to put on jeans, and never implied that women should empower themselves by turning to self degradation.
6 - Lauren
You're hiding, John Zorbedian. Don't. You have good stuff to say, I think. Don't be sceered - come back. I look for people like you, found you with your really good Ariel Levy review, searched and you're gone...
Real human,
Lauren