Another witty animation by the RSA, this time featuring everyone’s favourite misanthrope. Slavoj Žižek’s provocative thesis is that attempts to weave ethics into consumption – for instance with the Fairtrade label – merely serve to make the inbuilt injustices more durable: “The proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible, and the altruistic virtues have really prevented the carrying out of this aim.”
We can buy exploitative and corporate items, and the anti-exploitative anti-corporate antidote is already included in the product, like ethical coffee at Starbucks. We can increase our wealth while pursuing sustainability or equity, like SRI. We can lend money for profit and promote virtues like entrepreneurship or “financial inclusion”, as in microfinance.
Žižek’s attack on what he calls “cultural capitalism”, which seeks to assimilate rather than reject anti-capitalist sentiments like anti-consumerism, strikes at a central paradox: many products and services now offer us redemption from the harm we know (or at least suspect) we are doing, via our purchase, as part of the package. Yet this liberates us to go on just as before, questioning anything.
From past dreams of “socialism with a human face” in the Eastern bloc, Žižek says, we have moved on to similarly vain dreams of “capitalism with a human face” in the West. Is this moral rejection of charity and compassion really wise? Perhaps not, but it exposes a problematic – and very limiting – shift in our dreams and strategies for creating a better world.
(phil)
4 comments
Comments feed for this article
April 23, 2013 at 19:18
Paulo R Brito
This is so true!
April 24, 2013 at 19:22
jiskagojowczyk
Even if this is true and “wise” – I wonder about a couple of things, of course: For one, what are the real life consequences of this for someone living in a capitalist life world without willingness to drop out of it completely? Secondly, the metaphor with the two arms, one beating and the other caressing the weak, seems suitable. But I brood over the idea that chances for substantial change would rise if both arms beat. It is somehow an empirical question but I always doubt the Marxian assumption that the weaker the actor’s are the more enraged and also effective the opposition becomes.
April 24, 2013 at 19:47
philmader
Hi Jiska. It would be hard to disagree with what you say! Zizek is a provocateur, so I guess this is not to be taken literally for any policies or even for individual choices, when considering how to try and make the world a better place. What simply struck a nerve for me was his analysis of how critical analyses can be co-opted, and next thing you know they are re-branded and sold as a product – amazing, and yet somewhat disturbing.
April 25, 2013 at 11:02
jiskagojowczyk
Hi Phil, and again: Yes, of course. ;) To go further, it would probably be a great question to ask how this argument of co-optation is also used to (de-)legitimate decisions and action. Zizek points towards the comforting feeling when you buy fair trade coffee. His argument can be an instrument of non-buyers (that, instead, buy their coffee at some other stand) to reach exactly the same goal of a ‘good consciousness’. So you may ask, too: Who uses this kind of deconstruction of semi-critical attempts when and why with which consequences? I would love to know more about it…