RSS

# 15 Dec 23 - Translation and Globalization

張貼者： NTNU GITI BLOG on 2010年9月17日 星期五
標籤：
#15 Don Slater, “Consumption versus Culture”, in Consumer Culture and Modernity. Cambridge: Polity, 1997.

7 意見:

Unknown 提到...

如作者在全書導論所言，本書重點在於介紹消費文化相關理論，以及各種現代的經驗和難題如何產生，並以商品化與社會、文化生產、「道德」與認同，作為三大核心議題。(1-2)而討論所謂的「需求」，一方面是相關的生活型態，一方面則是去要求相關的資源、資格，同時都具有社會和政治兩面的意義。(3)
本篇選文為全書第三章，討論「文化」與「消費文化」的意涵及衝突，主要檢視「消費文化是一種現代性的病徵」的看法。追求「有機」概念的文化遇上要求異化、分析、分離、機械性的現代性，各種規範界線都被打破。於是在我們無法真正逃離「文化工業」的情形下，似乎也的確只能希望大眾經由教育而對自己的需求和選擇更有意識。然而，正如文中所引Borlingborke的說法，如果貨幣的權力才是真正的權力，那麼整個討論只由學術、文化界知識分子角度出發，也似乎是件奇怪的事。如全篇結論認為消費文化是種錯誤，業界想必嗤之以鼻，甚至光是商管領域的研究就不太可能同意這種說法，雖然談錢不免有庸俗的感受，但不談錢大概無法真正呈現全貌。回到「翻譯與全球化」的議題，如果要放到「消費文化」的脈絡來談，恐怕還是得談如何操縱需求、或說「介紹」需求，讓翻譯成為眾人「需要」的對象。

2010年12月22日 上午10:44
Ron 提到...

本文是Don Slater所著《消費文化與現代性》的一章。一開始作者就提出兩個截然不同的觀點：自由派人士認為傳統社會瓦解之後，「啟蒙者與英勇消費者」的興起是正面的；批評現代性的人士則認為，失去約束力的社會造成了混亂、異化以及價值的毀損。作者分析自啟蒙時代以降的各種相關論述，還是以批判現代性與消費文化的論述為主，認為消費與文化是對立的，因此「消費文化」本身就是一個矛盾詞（oxymoron）。有一種論述認為文化是社會的價值體系，是漸漸自然形成的日常生活準則，這種體系在轉向現代性的過程中已被瓦解，被理性、貨幣經濟、民主政治所取代。在缺乏約束的富裕社會中，人的需求會受到什麼影響？Durkheim認為，缺乏道德秩序，無論社會再富裕，人們永遠無法得到滿足，永遠會感到挫折與抑鬱，因為人類的慾望是無止境的。盧梭認為人處於不平等的社會中，會與他人比較高下，造成無止的慾望，失去了真實的本性。Tocqueville認為追求一己之私慾最終將導致政治自由之喪失。作者提到「自我」（self）的喪失，認為這是20世紀對於消費文化最有影響力的論述。在後傳統時代，價值與角色的多元化（pluralization）造成個人的身份認同危機。個人往往受到媒體、廣告、同儕、短暫多變的社會輿論等影響。作者最後提到，在現代性與消費文化的觀點背後，往往隱藏幾許懷舊之情，認為消費文化永遠不能取代那個已經逝去的世界。不過這些觀點從18世紀以降就已經存在，所以那個美好的世界到底屬於哪一個時空呢？

2010年12月22日 上午11:01
Unknown 提到...

I found it interesting that, as this week’s article demonstrates, the ‘consumption versus culture debate’ has existed, historically, within a changing background of understanding with respect to the human “inclination toward”, or experience of, greed/desire. This understanding seems to have shifted back and forth between varying degrees of emphasis on the role played by the inner world, the outer world, and, more recently, an interaction between the two. As Slater points out, for example, the ‘liberal tradition — from Hobbes onward — argues that men’s needs are naturally insatiable’. In other words, for the liberalist thinkers the discussion of consumption versus culture is premised upon the notion that greed/ desire arises as a kind of innate aspect of the inner world of the human psyche. Rousseau, on the other hand, places the blame for the existence of such greed/desire squarely upon the shoulders of society (the outer world): “The man of unlimited greed whom Hobbes is describing is not man in a state of nature but rather as he has been produced by modern society (78).” Finally, as Slater explains, more modern discussions of the issue tend to see human greed/desire as something that arises out of an interaction between the inner and outer worlds as opposed to belonging to either one of them exclusively. Slater tells us that, in many of the more influential 20th century accounts of consumer culture, “social action and structure are increasingly understood in terms of individual choices undertaken in relation to the needs of, or for, a self.” The word “need” here, then, can quite easily be thought of as something equivalent to the “greed” and “desire” referred to by Hobbes and Rousseau, for example. Slater’s article offers us an excellent opportunity to reflect upon this changing landscape of intellectual enquiry — shifting from an emphasis on the workings of the outer world, to that of the inner world, and, presently, to that of the interactions between the two.

2010年12月22日 下午2:25
Jennifer 提到...

本文旨在討論「消費/者」與「文化」間的矛頓，或說是一種拉距。由於現代社會中的多重身分認同，並且受到各種外在因素影響：媒體、同儕、廣告等等，因此逐漸喪失自我{self}，易受到外在事件或他人意識形態的操控。例如：楊淑君事件引發抵制韓貨，但實際上「被抵制」的對象很可能是開韓國餐館的台灣人或是台灣的韓風成衣店。
消費其實與物質文化(這是本文中較為不足的一點)息息相關，而提到這一點，就必須提及經濟的力量。誠如文中多位作家所言，人類慾望永無止境。人類的慾望與經濟力量才是宰治消費型態的主因。有意識的操控(如：發起國貨運動、博覽會)只能影響一時，最終還是回到經濟的供需平衡上：好貨自然人人買(如：好用的大同電鍋、有錢人基於炫耀、投資等各種心態購買的名牌物品)。而文化與消費的拉距，似乎只存在於上述種種因素之外的剩餘小部份(例如：在品質、價格差不多的產品中做抉則，這時消費者才會考慮是否要支持國貨等等)。

2010年12月22日 晚上7:25
Craig 1 of 2 提到...

In Consumption versus Culture, Slater launches an attack on “consumer culture,” by which he means consumerism, or the consumption of goods and the influence of advertising and the media. It seems consumerism is indeed problematic, but in strident and panicked tones, Slater reaches the pitch of full-on existential crisis as he throws out his ideas about how we shouldn't be living. If consumerism threatens the very foundations of his identity, then I would suggest that he not participate in consumerism. There are choices, other ways of living, that Slater might try perhaps away from the institution. And while the media is manipulative and over consumption threatens the environment, I do believe it is important that we maintain the right to choose. His solutions are hardly forward thinking (they are obviously not meant to be) but really are more akin to Armageddon; a return to traditional (feudal) society, or even more impractical, a Rousseauian Eden where we can just pick berries off a bush for dinner (where are these bushes?). I would rather struggle with subtle coercion, too many choices, the greed of others and competition if the alternative must be very real, and wholly unsubtle enslavement on the manor. Today, I am relatively free to construct a personal relationship to consumerism; in feudalistic society or under a dictatorship, however, chances are my relationship to religious authority, mind control, slavery, servitude, disease, hunger, overwork, cold and misery would be decided for me directly with no possibility of escape other than an early death. To me this would be an existential crisis worth going on about.

2010年12月22日 晚上9:10
Craig 2 of 2 提到...

Traditional values do not suit everyone, and people like Slater really have no right greater than anyone else to impose reactionary thinking on the rest of us. In certain respects, he seems no different than right-wing movements in the U.S. that stress family values as if the definition of family were solely at their discretion. Slater claims his return to fascism is for the sake of ontological security, but whose? Slater, just like advertisers and retailers, wishes to control others to address his own legacy. I am sure he is aware that he himself, his ideas and his career must be branded in such a way so that students and scholars know that they “need” to consume his words. I personally feel more threatened by people like Slater than I do by free markets; I am still free to live

On a lighter note, perhaps we can discuss Kate Soper's Alternative Hedonism, as she offers some alternatives for living that are forward thinking and allow us who are on the fringe (and like it here) to pursue what we believe in with less interference or interfacing with the mainstream.

2010年12月22日 晚上9:11
Eveline 提到...

我必須承認，讀這篇文章我有很多的障礙。我非常同意Don Slater提到消費文化及所謂的文化工業對人類帶來的負面影響，自我變得更加孤離，更加受無統一性、四散的價值觀所掌控而無所適從的種種現象。而對於自我逐漸變成一種可賣的商品的過程，我也認為這是很值得提出來討論且檢視的部分。但是從文章開頭到結尾，我一直看到兩極化的論述，例如開頭Slater提出許多的保守派的看法來佐證現代性造成了過去有機體的文化，傳統的價值不再，彷彿過去階級的、傳統的、神權統治的那個年代是美好的。但事實上，對於人是否真正存在過一種固定不變的價值(fixed value), 一種先驗的價值觀(transcendental value)，Slater用一種本來就有的方式論述，造成我後面的完全無法理解。而我認為modernity以及romanticism所要挑戰的應該就是這個前題吧。這個transcendental value就彷彿是「真理是否存在」的哲學討論一般，除了以宗教論述可以撫慰人心之外，我不認為在歷史的討論中曾經理所當然的存在過，因此Slater在結論認為”consumeer culture can never replace the world we have lost,...” (99)我也就更不懂他所說的失去的到底是甚麼。另一方面，他在文章中多處將liberalism與individual desire, self-obsession, romanticism, hedonistic self, experience of pleasure作連結的部分，也是我理解中斷的部分。我總覺得整篇文章像是把tradition, social order, restraints, organic culture, puritan ethnic 歸為一類，而上述的字眼則是另外一類。

2010年12月23日 凌晨1:33

張貼留言