Week 1 - Commodify Your Dissent

Greetings classmates,

For our fourth and final blog entry this week we were required to read three extra readings from the textbook and then select one in particular that interested us to write an entry about. That being said, the article I have chosen is called Commodify Your Dissent and it was written by Thomas Frank.

I have chosen to answer the fifth question, namely to characterize Frank's tone in this selection and share my opinion as to whether it enhances or detracts from the forcefulness of his argument.

That being said, upon first glance, I was put off by Frank's tone and thought that it detracted from his argument.

It was certainly very political and left wing, glorifying the countercultural ideal of rebellion and blatant disregard for social convention while simultaneously dismissing traditional society as a "stiff, militaristic order that seeks to suppress instinct, to forbid sex and pleasure, to deny basic human impulses and individuality, to enforce through a rigid uniformity a meaningless plastic consumerism."

That is not to say that such points may not be valid, but in the very least they deserve to be explored in a well articulated and precise manner opposed to just dismissing them in one long hasty generalization that is so characteristic of lazy argumentation. Instead of automatically dismissing traditional sexual morality as the suppression of instinct and uniformity as the denial of individuality it would be better to carefully outline his arguments as to why he believes those points to be true and to respond to the arguments of someone like myself who would counter that self control and moderation are paramount to a productive society and that uniformity fosters a healthy sense of collectivism and concern for the community at large.

It was not until I got further into the reading that I realized this was not the point of Frank's argument.

This was not a discussion of politics nor was this selection a left wing diatribe against the opposition.

What the author Frank was doing was actually genius.

His point was that, in his own words, "Capitalism is changing, obviously and drastically." Whereas in a previous era conformity was universally held as something good, today we strive to be countercultural and value individuality. Contrary to being ousted by this development, the capitalist system has rather found a way to profit from it. Indeed, Frank states "Consumerism is no longer about 'conformity' but about 'difference.'"In other words, businesses are finding clever new ways to market the progressive ideal in such and such a way as is beneficial to their own personal interests.

Thus, the true purpose of Frank's tone was not to involve himself in politics or to express ill feelings toward any side of the political spectrum, but rather to encapsulate a certain ethos. That is, to express the particular sentiments of a certain ideal regardless of whether or not he agrees with it. The fact that I initially fell for it is a testament to how cleverly crafted and skilled his presentation was.

In conclusion, I believe that this tone enhances the forcefulness of his argument because it enables the reader to both visualize and better understand the ideal that is being referenced.

James.