The Political Commodification of YOURSELF!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 чер 2024
- Do you take selfie?
#identity #commodification #selfieprotest
to know more about profilicity:
Identity After Authenticity: Abigail Thorn's Profile:
• Identity After Authent...
video mentioned:
BAD Philosophy Videos! (Philosophy Tube on Kant's Philosophy):
• BAD Philosophy Videos!...
script with references (click the selfie politics one):
www.kritike.org/metaporika-de...
Hans-Georg Moeller is a professor at the Philosophy and Religious Studies Department at the University of Macau, and, with Paul D'Ambrosio, author of "You and Your Profile: Identity After Authenticity" .
(If you buy this book, or any other by Hans-Georg Moeller, from the Columbia University Press website, please use the promo code CUP20 and you should get a 20% discount.)
Thanks a lot to Kirouane M. for providing the Arabic subtitles!
Thanks a lot to Nemo Li for providing the Chinese subtitles!
This is the first time we do a video fully scripted, what do you think?
This was much more easier to listen to than the others. They were good aswell but at some points they felt rambly. Thanks for the good work, and i hope you'd do more videos on the daoist tradition!
Fantastic. Certainly a bit easier to listen to, since you could trim it down a bit and focus the content. Very nice!
It was an excellent video. I also like the interview style though. Both bring to light interesting ideas. This format is just more formal I suppose
The scripted video felt too structured and tight. I preferred the interview style in which you could ramble or profess ideas as you are currently thinking.
@Not Real Hi not real, it is weird that you say this. What is the issue with that website?
I try opening the script with Chrome, and it works fine. (even Microsoft Edge works fine)
Please try to click the correct link "Selfie Politics: The Political Commodification of Yourself" directly.
If it is other issues, please let us know! -Fai
I enjoy both formats. My bias is for the natural conversation, but this let's you escape the commodification of the self a bit better. I escape it by paying UA-cam their blood money.
I appreciate your even presentations. I don't think you need to do much other than regularly produce content. You will catch on.
Beyond whether or not you "catch on," or "succeed" by whatever metric, I would say that what you are sharing is valuable, and you should continue for as long as you are still having fun, and have something to share. It's great.
Hey I love what you're doing with this channel. I graduated with a philosophy degree but my work isn't related to philosophy so sadly I don't get to study it any more. The UA-cam videos available on philosophy are either straight up lectures or pop garbage. So I appreciate this quality UA-cam video style philosophy.
Also it's cool that you're a socialist, you should talk about Marxism as that is something that I see a lot of bad UA-cam videos on. I am even suspicious that some content deliberately obfuscates what Marxism is about.
Ah, the "Marxism never done right" motif with a new conspiratorial twist.
@@MaximusTCR That's not what he said and you know it. (But, ah! You had a tedious, memeified lib jab you've just been itching to use, so you be you.)
@@lsobrien Ah, the classic Marxist defense of "pointing out a trope becomes a trope". Maybe I'm the real Marxist. Who can tell anymore?
@@MaximusTCRwow man, you are so good at noticing tropes! how are you so smart!
@@tradgroyper3806 Consistent application of critical thinking skills
facinating!! im a field organizer and volunteer for campaigns and movements, and have been very frustrated lately by what I view as a rift between the branding of candidates and the candidates actual policy views, and how people respond to that branding based on their identity. I feel like it removes focus from what we should actually be paying attention to as voters which is not symbols, but actual plans and policies. But I also understand the power of a emotional narrative, and the power of identity to drive behavior, so I'm honestly very confused by all of this and unsure of how to navigate the political space.
Turn to nature and the natural will to power we have within us. They will never prove wrong your assumptions.
This has been the effect of "the personal is political"!
step 1: stop organizing for campaigns/movements that are sanctioned by the state
Interesting analysis. I have always identified the recent trends of wokeism, political polarization (or as you more aptly put it, political identification), and identity politics, as an obfuscatory tactic by the ruling class to combat class consciousness, in the face of wage stagnation and ever-increasing inequality. You describe ideas about today's political landscape which are similar to my own thoughts but with a different vocabulary -- it lends a new perspective. Thanks.
I know UA-cam is a shitshow of conflicting criticisms, but for what it's worth (likely not much, and that's fine, not trying to make you bang your head against a wall), I prefer your videos without a script. More natural/less stilted, and some of your unscripted, tangential points add a lot to your videos, imo. Still, a great assessment of the topic.
Yeah, me too. I think scripted videos definitely do have their place and some channels do wonders with them, but I feel there's a trend do progressively double down on that, and it's a nice change of pace to have something that sounds more personal and "less produced", but still of high quality
+1
Putting Biden up as a representation of the left is hillariously absurd. But then again so is the poitical discourse in the US...😅
"If re-elected, my first step will be to issue an executive order that declares a dictatorship of the proletariat and abolishes private property."
-Joe Biden of the Radical Left
When it comes to "lifestyle marketing", the fitness industry and political industry are the masters of it. And they're both modern takes on old Military recruitment propaganda. Always thought it was dumb as hell, until I saw how many people it worked on.
If it doesn't work on you, you're not the target demographic. Its all quite genius really. Shame it makes my soul wither and die.
it makes your soul wider and die if you struggle to resist the temptation to partake in it. If you realize they are superficial, and learn to shut off social media when necessary, focusing on your inner self and don't give u finding true friends, you will no longer be affected by them.
I appreciate the cohesion of the scripted video; I believe it to be clearer in intent and more comprehensive in delivery. I'm not averse to the unscripted format, as it offers different things and I think there's a balance to be found between the two.
My head exploded. Thank you for exposing what should have been completely obvious. I am curious if you have examined if we are on the precipice of an unavoidable descent into dystopia.
Absolutely Brilliant.
This is a very interesting argument, and I would expect that empirical sociological research on the self-centeredness of contemporary political action would support your general theory. I think it has particular explanatory power for the George Floyd BLM protests spreading to Europe, demonstrating a total divorce of the political action from the from the supposed political cause which is uniquely American. Another phenomenon that comes to mind is the unprompted display of political ideological labels in profiles on dating and casual sex apps like Tinder. It is not about finding someone with a compatible value system because these people are not looking for long-term relationships; rather I think the choice to display a political label is directly linked to one's idea of their own sexual attractiveness in the same way that a person believes that displaying a sportscar or particular clothing brand clothing makes them sexually attractive.
that's really logical, thanks for sharing!
I’ve recently been on a sort of personal enlightenment and i’m discovering ‘continental’ philosophy for the first time and i am so glad this is of a resource. i had to take a break from university due to living under and leaving an abusive relationship. but through zizek, perhaps a guilty pleasure (but why the stuffiness around enjoyment?) did i discover my prejudices against european philosophy melt away my analytic scientific lense. now i wanna know what they all have to say. i want to learn more about subjectivity and i’m glad there is a resource such as yourself! thank you for the work!
Well, if you have a little bit of income, buy in Amazon the book: Time and Philosophy, A history of Continental Thought by John McCumber. If you are new to the field, that book will help you a great deal. godspeed.
@@caleb1686 thank you so much for the recommendation! I genuinely appreciate it!
And I had thought you were working off a script before; a credit to your capacity for articulation (in a foreign language, no less). I really enjoyed this format of scripted content. The integration of what you've been talking about with respect to profilicity is fantastic, and provides interesting insight into why people decide to associate with certain things. I've noticed that, having since watched your videos on profilicity, I've become a little more comfortable "indulging" in that means of identity, because you've also highlighted how we can maintain a safe mind about it (genuine pretending).
I'm not sure I agree with the proposition that the two parties of America to be not substantially different. I understand that the basis of this claim is how neither party really poses a challenge to the "base conditions" that the nation stands on; I'm kind of murky on that claim too, but that's not what I am contending here. The issue for me is that I don't think that the basis given is sufficient for claiming that the two parties are similar. Is it not worth considering their differing positions on matters which are of existential importance to the world (climate change, interventionism), as well as the civil rights for the marginalized (the recent voting laws being passed in the individual states, drug war, trans rights, etc.)? And I do think that Biden has been taking meaningful steps towards manifesting his positions as policy, and Trump tried to as well while he was in office; it's not like their positions are empty gestures.
How should we determine how different two political positions are?
Answering this question takes a great deal of work, both on the answerer and listener side. I don't work for free so that'll be 30000 Septims up front. Or you can wait around and find some Nord who works for cheap. The thing is the parties do have differences, some big uns that people like to hide in, so explaining all the factions in parties and government that have very different views and how they ultimately act similarly due to base incentive is hard and Americans don't have the incentive to really care.
do you want book recommendations? a good intro might be books by Thomas Frank but if you really want to understand why both parties are empire building vampires, well there are endless books on that. This month I read "the Divide" by Jason Hickel and "the Culture of Terrorism" by Noam Chomsky.
By the results?
Great video. Love the disclaimer at the end.
It should also be included at the beginning though! Disclaimers at the end... arrive kind of late!
Thanks for that. Very insightful. Love the disclaimer at the end. Great use of irony.
It should also be included at the beginning though! Disclaimers at the end... arrive kind of late!
The part about two political moments is key to understanding this extraordinary and challenging video.
This being scripted is helpful so we can check by reading but makes it seem less spontaneous
Excellent, as always. By far the best UA-cam channel with this kind of content
Jesus Christ, well done!
Maybe the first video that delves into economics and its relatives - advertising, expansion, growth - as the drivers to these now-ubiquitous phenomena around the world. How marketing had to shift from signals of social mobility to signals of political nature because the rising living standards are now occurring elsewhere. This then homogenizes the political debate and substantial differences are replaced for technical ones. All based on the classic divide and conquer model: "exploit trivial technical differences to construct huge personal differences," couldn't have put it any better than that.
Ausgezeichnete Arbeit!
I actually like unscripted much better. I don't understand what's hard to follow about it, but this way is ok too. Editing goes into it either way but being able to see the process of intellectualizing and grappling with the problem in the moment is something pretty rare to see in our current moment. I think there is more distance when scripted and I can "see" the thinking less. I also prefer rough sketches to overly finished ones though.
Thank you. For all of your videos. I learn so much from you, I am so grateful
This was great. Thanks
Loving the *Warning*
You have to admit those advertising and marketing people are sinisterly and terrifyingly good at what they do.
great!
love the warning signs at the beginning and end of the video
This video is amazing
Great video!
Great video thanks
Matt Christmann of Chapo Trap House talks about US mainstream politics are now similar to Gilded Age of late 19th century.
Both Republican and Democratic Parties fundamentally agreed with Laissez Faire Capitalism with no politics on class.
He is currently uploading Cushvlogs on formation of modern Capitalism after American Civil War.
Great video
This channel is brilliant!
Agree with others - a video on parasocial relationships would be great.
I must say that the unscripted is much preferable!
+1 no script, but still solid.
I prefer the scripted as it is presented in a way with images that makes it mentally easier to digest, but I think the unscripted videos are also great for Q&As and stuff.
I like the scripted video format a bit more, as the flow resembles that of an essay, rathar than a free conversation. Personally this is my favourite video of yours, so far.
this video really left an impression on me. ill have to watch it a few more times to fully absorb it - its quite astounding how many things started to click near the end. definitely dont abandon the scripted format, i think a lot of the feedback here might be skewed because most of your videos have been unscripted - perhaps you'll attract an audience that enjoys this format the more you do it!
Wow, super interesting. Reminded me a bit of boudrillard
All of this brings me to Fredrick Douglas (Of course it is not to trivialize inhumanity.). Fredrick Douglas wrote (1845): "Indeed, it is not uncommon for slaves even to fall out and
quarrel among themselves about the relative goodness of their masters, each contending for the superior goodness of his own over that of the others."
Interesting video! I'm thinking that the script would be far more useful for a reader than for a listener on topics such as these. In my experience, if ideas are presented through voice, it is far easier to parse the building blocks of those ideas if they are not conveyed through a script. The reverse, I think, is true of ideas presented through text.
That’s so interesting I always thought most of your videos were scripted! Keep up the great work.
Great content as always! I'd like to hear more about the social causes that changed the form of political engangement and branding through history. I think that the social stagnation vs the social mobility and from the notion of "crowd/masses" to the personal profiles is a good starting point, but we need to elaborate more on that. Like why to take such form? Why not open class struggle? Is it the commodification of politicks or the politisation of commodities?
The GN countries' myriad classes have more incentive to stick together and less incentive the upend the political and economic systems. My question boiled down to "why even lock horns over technical differences, what drives that?" Which is similar to your question too, I think. So, uh, there was a one sentence partial answer to only one part of your question. That'll be 20000 Septims.
I think it is great. I like this scripted style. It's present more difficult concept with better clarity and structure without too many reiteration. But I guess an unscripted style could be more suitable for the more casual content so that I can feel like having a conversation rather than listening to an audio book.
It's interesting to note that this trend you identify of "politics in the age of the profile" works to distance in people's minds the political from the actual material conditions of their lives.
Amazing video, will there be more?
Question about subject matter: you mentioned that political polarization over small (sometimes technical) issues existed long before modernity. History of Religion is full of examples. Do you think relationship between politics/religion and identity was organized differently back then?
Hey! I really appreciate the 'warning' you include in these videos. Would it be ok if I made a similar warning based of this for my videos?
Saludos desde México >:)
Very interesting video! Are you aware of Wolfgang M. Schmitts and Ole Nymoens Book Influencer. Ideologie der Warenkörper which just recently released here in Germany at Suhrkamp? They make a very similar critic of this phenomenon - it might be of interest for you. I enjoyed the book a lot at least.
I have no strong feelings re: script vs no script.
Shit I don't know what my Chromebook says about me and notice that I'm also afraid to learn. I am filled with warm dread.
Damn philosophers 😂
There is a presentation called "art in the cloud" which overlaps this quite well.
Would love to see your take on the current h3 vs. Steven Crowder vs. Sam Seder vs. Tim Pool debacle. Basically you have a bunch of left and right leaning youtubers who are accusing the other side of being cowardly and afraid to debate. They recently had a ´debate` that was civil for a few seconds before turning into a shouting match and name calling, yet both sides are doing victory laps claiming the other side chickened out. It’s just crazy to me how they’re all trying to ridicule each other for the exact same behavior themselves excibit.
Much to unpack here. To me your vocabulary and focus seem like positive steps toward a serious analysis of cyber psychology, which is usually regarded either as an aberration by those "outside" cyberspace, or as a "given" by those who spend most of their time there. This will be a very important area of study for understanding social and political shifts which might seem irrational or inexplicable, as well as what constitutes a normal mental "attitude" for an ordinary person. Currently, geospace and cyberspace are not well-integrated.
I have to say though, despite the "criticism" I post on the channel, I vastly appreciate the thought process and the theory being expressed here. However I fear that it might suffer from this tendency to try to explain absolutely everything in its lens rather some specific phenomenons it's related with.
Good job though, we need more content like that!
Interesting stuff. You made some points I'd been thinking about recently with relation to protests. It is interesting that in order to attract attention, protestors have to "brand" themselves and their actions. This creates media/social media buzz, like attention on the witty signs or which celebrities joined in. But does that actually help the protest or does it actually distract? I'm leaning toward the latter.
The point is that that IS politics now. So no, it's not distracting. It can't be.
"Political activism is inseparable from profile work."
I detect a hint of an accusation of inauthenticity here. Go check their other videos on that for more clarity.
@@nonah60, please read my post more carefully, as you have missed my point.
Vielen Dank für dieses erhellende Video. Ich empfand das Tempo des Vortrages als genau richtig, ich fand Ihre bisherigen Videos aber auch sehr gut.
Einige Gedanken von mir im Anschluss an dieses Video: Heidegger schrieb in "Nietzsche Wort: 'Gott ist tot'", dass in der Moderne "das Seiende als das Objektive in die Immanenz der Subjektivität hineingetrunken wird." Das Profil ist, wie Sie hier so wunderbar aufgezeigt haben, auch nicht mehr auf Technik, Marken oder das Ding selbst angewiesen, es scheint sich bloß um sich selbst zu kreisen und sich selbst zu "trinken" oder zu "verzehren" (wodurch die Kommodifizierung des eigenen Selbst entsteht, meine ich); Politik und Marketing dienen bloß als Bestand für den Durst der Subjektivität, die sich stets ihrer selbst vergewissern muss, um ihren Bezug zur Realität und zu ihr selbst aufrecht erhalten zu können.
Could you expand on how a political cause or issue is impacted by its commodification? Could commodification lead to social change or will the political issue get lost in the commodification? Could the commodification of “Black Lives Matter” lead to a reduction in police related murder of black people? Or is it more likely to hurt the political cause by declaring the problem alleviated because of the commodification?
One reads Fanged Noumena and watches this video :)
Hallo, thank you for the input. I am a student of sociology at a German University and would like to write my bachelor thesis based on profilicity and commodification of the self, but I have trouble building a coherent research question. Maybe someone here has a good idea that could be analyzed for a bachelor thesis? Thanks a lot for any ideas coming my way!
The warning at the end about the nature of online platforms should be required, arguably more than trigger/content warnings.
I think the main issue is hyperindividualism. Increasingly, from different factors society has become less community oriented (as in physical communities, not the online bs where people don't have pressure to interact).
This creates a void in identity.
Everyone seems to be in a scramble to assert what they are, without grouping together in long term causes that don't follow a tune set by a multinational corporation.
Atomization and statelessness are ideal situation for making people uncritical and dependent on oligopolies that don't support tight communities (because tight communities can be catalysts for easier organizing around things like boycott or strikes).
It's best for people to unplug and fight for governments to build more public spaces/squares.
I'd love to but in practice I can't.
I live in Taiwan, the "community" I want to protect only has old people now. becaus3 my young neighbors either move to cities with more economic opportunities or migrate to Canada or Australia. Especially the women, who then marry Canadian or Australian citizens.
So if I stay in my community, I would be sacrificing my economic opportunities, and also have no romantic partner to love and work together. The former reinforce the later as wealth is what makes men sexually competitive.
It can be pretty overwhelming to think of all the different ways we have used to signify our "self". I think the commodification of identities is the solution someone came up with for what Marx saw as capitalism's inherently contradictory nature.
Capitalist economies demand never ending growth and that becomes an issue with finite physical resources. In this late-stage we see a shift in what the market "produces" to intangible tokens and signifiers Bitcoin,NFTs, parasocial relationships and what you've coined as profilicity.
Lately, I've read about "the Singularity" movement and it's idealogical significance to those in Silicon Valley. I really feel like that's the direction we are headed in as a species. As if the end goal is set and we are just progressing through the steps.
I really like your middle paragraph there, the move toward intangible tokens. Even ten years ago, there were articles about how millennials are more interested in buying "experiences" than things. Online life became so important that having a beautiful webpage mattered more than driving a beautiful car. But it's funny, because so much of traditional culture was intangible as well: oral poetry, country dances, jokes. The difference is that they were also uncommodified. Now we've lived through total materialism and emerged into a world of highly commodified but intangible goods.
You should read Hirshman "Passion and Interest: Arguments in Defense of Capitalism Before its Triumph". Passion is dangerous. Capitalism was presented as glorious ways to bring peace by suppressing the passion to enable the pursuit of happiness equivalent to the pursuit of interest (money). Its success would develop a better condition for mankind than the old system of honor, faith and virtue. This is true and in the present, we see the disengagements of the spirits where many people are bored, angry, and feeling nihilistic.
Now the passion never really gone away. The ugly selfies, the cliche self-help and the many entertainment devices are there to stimulate human primal experiences. They are made for interest and used for passion. My point is predictions of endpoints ignored variables. Humanity is not perfect, we progress and regress to better and worse situations all the time.
Politics is pop.
+1
I'm sure this is a limitation of yourube medium, but where can I study a stronger argument in support of distinguishing between symbols and signals. The relationship between symbols and signals, and social status seems so fluid, conditional, and interactive that a thorough analysis of the distinction is important to applying it practically
Great video! The conflict between China and USA with propoganda maschine being used by both parties and their implications on people of both nationalities from your point of view would be very interesting video for me. Thank you for the content professor.
There's a lot of truth in this. However, one should not over identify left and right politics with whatever the two mainstream parties are doing and saying. Outside the Liberal consensus real economic /social pressures build. Frustration with the mainstream tends to stoke a new left and right of disenfranchised and precarious populations.
I always knew, that I was the difference.
Thank you for this and all of your videos! I don't understand why make a distinction between "sign" and "signal" (I do understand, presumably, "sign" references Sausseurian linguistics and its long tradition). Is the point just to introduce some conscious intentionality? Then I would argue, hasn't buying luxury goods always functioned in this way under capitalism, as a way for example for a successful business man to enunciate to himself and others, I am the type of person who would own (deserve!) an Aston-Martin. Even if it were less consciously conscious before. I'm very interested in your Profilicity schema. I feel like you're describing a "post-class" political situation, but from a Marxist (and also Psychological) pov, I feel like it's more accurately a "repression" of class, which shoots out in unexpected ways. I really love the spin on "the personal is political." But isn't this "endless supply of self-profiling opportunities" truly a superstructure emerging from our society's desire to repress class? I think it's also useful how this video describes politics as self-commodification, but I think as "commodity" it also implies that capitalism is fairly crucial to this dynamic, and that these profilicity ideas might very well be useful to / elaborated on by a Marxist critique of commodity exchange.
What's your take on run over protester laws in the U.S.
This was a good video I don't mind scripted or unscripted
I love the scripted videos you make. Thank you.
I’m pretty sure that first image on the left is a composite. The tonality and sharpness is mismatched but more importantly the perspective is off
Identifying with a cause as a prop for an immature character, rather than actual espousal to the ethical or social aspect.
I have never bought clothing that I cannot remove the logo from. They are not paying me to advertise for them.
I’m also going to suggest that the polarization of America is in itself a bit of a media party and although it does exist the outside impression of it it may not represent the reality on the ground, so to speak
I really hate asking actual questions, but wrt politics of the past (presenter shows differing economic and political systems around 3 minutes in) and the signal politics of today, I'm not sure those previous politics could even exist within the highlighted countries (US, UK, Germany). As a group, the GN has less incentive within politics and economics to actually change from their current system as it stands right now. So here is the question, What exactly is driving the selfie politics and wider conditions of "profilicity" mentioned here?
I now regret never really reading "Risk Society" by Ulrich Beck and "Society of Singularities" by Andreas Reckwitz. If I had, I could at least posture as if I had an answer.
But it makes sense to me that under the conditions of a globalized network society in which all old markers of value (tradition, family, religion, etc.) become contingent and nothing but the marketplace remains, you have to market yourself and compete with all other individuals, not only for jobs, but also for social recognition. The relegation of the risks of failure to the level of the individual person (as opposed to the organization or society) makes you replacable, and you know it. The pressure of social mobility (you want to move up, or at least, you want to not move downward) keeps you constantly trying hard to market yourself, look for opportunities. You want to be able to connect with as many other "good" elements of the network. What is determined as good is mostly what you think you will profit from in some way. Commodification of identity markers makes them quickly readable by others who share them, creating instant opportunity for connection.
At the same time a lot of value is placed on individuality and difference, on offering uniqueness in identity or experience But not boundless difference. That would overwhelm and confuse, we want people to be a unique variation of the familar, so they provide us with some unique value while at the same time remaining readable, understandbale, unthreatening, relatable. Profilicity is a remix of categories.
Sorry if I rambled, I just liked your question.
Vielen Dank für diese lehrreiche Kritik am "Selfie Protest". Soweit ich die Analyse verstehe, spricht sie viele valide Punkte an. Ich möchte mich auf den Punkt der "Reduzierung der Unterschiede zwischen Links und Rechts" beziehen, die nach meiner Auffassung korrekt dargestellt werden, so weit wir uns auf den sog. "mainstream" beziehen, wie auch im Video angegeben.
Absolut unverständlich ist daher für mich die Auswahl der (visuellen) Aufhänger dieser Lehrstunde und die, meiner Meinung nach, unsachgemäße Gegenüberstellung von "Links" und "Rechts", die leider keiner notwendigen Differenzierung unterzogen werden.
Ich beziehe mich auf das mehrfach gezeigte Bild eines jungen Mannes, angeblich im Rahmen der G20 Proteste aufgenommen, und der Aufnahme einer jungen Frau, die sich offenbar während einer Trump-Wahlkampfveranstaltung mit einem Buch in der Hand präsentiert.
Die politischen Einordnungen und Darstellungen dieser Video-Lehrstunde beziehen sich in erster Linie auf die politische Konfliktsituation in den USA. Es ist daher angemessen, dass Bild der jungen Trump-Unterstützerin zu nehmen, gerade weil die "Trumpisten" derzeit den "mainstream" der Republikanischen Partei darstellen und damit erheblichen Einfluss auf die tatsächliche Politik in den USA haben.
Diesem Bild gegenübergestellt wird jedoch eine Aufnahme, die in der deutschen Presse zutreffend als "Hipster Selfie" beschrieben wird. Der Kontext der Aufnahme wird aber verzerrt dargestellt, worauf ich hier aufmerksam machen möchte. Es schließt sich die Frage an, warum effektheischend dieses Bild genutzt wird, obwohl es aus dem hier aufgebauten Kontext fällt.
Die Aufnahme des jungen Mannes entstand auf dem Schulterblatt, der Straße vor der Roten Flora, dem bekannten autonomen Zentrum in Hamburg. Alle politischen Demonstrationen waren zu dem Zeitpunkt der Aufnahme beendet bzw. durch die Polizei auseinandergetrieben. Das Schulterblatt war selbstverständlicher Rückzugsort für einen Teil der politischen Aktuere, die sich in Hamburg befanden, es war aber auch ein etablierter Ort für urbane Unterhaltung - auch am Wochende der Proteste gegen den G20 Summit. Die Polizei hatte sich zu diesem Zeitpunkt ohne Not, aber mit strategischem Kalkül aus diesem Stadtbereich vollständig zurückgezogen (bereits im Vorfeld gab es nur geringe polizeiliche Präsenz an dieser Stelle). Wir sehen auf dem Bild männliche Jugendliche, soweit erkennbar mit sog. Migrationshintergrund, die ein Feuer entfachen. Dieses Feuer, genau so wie auch die sich später entladende Plünderung eines angrenzenden Supermakrtes, wurden von den lokalen politischen Akteuren der Linksradikalen Szene, soweit möglich, eingegrenzt (siehe Stellungnahme lokaler Geschäftsleute und Anwohner: facebook.com/CantinaPopularHamburgo/posts/2009834439251557/). Eben dieses Bild soll jedoch, im Narrativ der deutschen Presse, welches hier im Rahmen des Videos offenbar übernommen wird, eine "radikale Szene" repräsentieren, "Extremisten", die rechten "Extremisten" gegenübergestellt werden soll. Dabei ist es eben sehr wahrscheinlich nur ein erlebnisorientierte Hipster, der eine Kulisse für Selbstdarstellung suchte. Würde er tatsächlich einer der linken politischen Randgruppen angehören, die hier fälschlicherweise symbolisch dargestellt werden sollen, so würde er kein Selfie von sich machen. Dies ist ein No-Go, da es inkriminiert.
Während es in den USA eine "identitäre Linke" geben mag (die keineswegs so politisch eingebunden ist, wie es die gegenübergestellten "Trumpisten" sind), so ist dies für die politische Situation in Deutschland auch nicht annähernd vergleichbar. Die in den deutschen Medien geführten Debatten sind oftmals nur schlechte Kopien der US-Schlagzeilen. Viele akademische Dispute sind nicht genuin, sondern erscheinen ebenfalls kopiert und aufbereitet.
So wäre es am Ende sogar wieder vertretbar, dieses Bild aus Deutschland einer Trump-Wahlkampfveranstaltung gegenüberzustellen, aber eben nur, wenn zuvor die notwendige Differenzierung durchgeführt worden wäre und eine inhaltliche und kontextbezogene Einordnung durchgeführt worden wäre. Der politisch "linke" mainstream in Deutschland ist nicht gleichzusetzen, mit den wahrscheinlich weniger als 1% radikalen Linken in Deutschland. Beide finden kaum ein Äquivalent im politischen Raum der USA.
Hingegen bestehen große Ähnlichkeiten (auf mehreren Ebenen) zwischen identären Rechten in Deutschland (Europa) und den USA.
Die Zuspitzung in diesem Video, durch die Bildauswahl, und die Trivialisierung der politischen Auseinandersetzung in "Links" und "Rechts" unterminiert das Anliegen dieser kritischen Analyse.
I think your thesis here is overall quite sound: the personal is politicized to such an extent as to forgo any possibility of more substantive structural change. I will say though that despite both Obama and Trump maintaining the American neoliberal status quo in terms of policy, the actual tenor of life in the United States, as well as the wild spike in hate crimes against minorities were incredibly impactful, and I don't think reducible to commodification of the individual.
I can't stand selfies, they're vain and self idolizing
We should be happy that the left and right are no longer in bloodthirsty opposition, I believe.
That means they're both screwing us over
I think the kids call people who identify with products as consooomers
I don't agree with one point, which is that there is no difference between left and right in America. There are big differences. Not between the parties, they are pretty indistinguishiable, but between right and left as movements. The two movements disagree on climate change, abortion, church and state, authoritarianism, what constitutes freedom, what capitalism is and how to address it's shortcomings, and so on. The American populous is captured by the way their political structure is set up and by the rich taking advantage and having an outsized influence on what happens. This leads to anyone that stands in the way of more profit getting trampled. The two parties, because of this 'corporate capture' do agree on most things and Biden indeed is only marginally better than Trump. There just should have been a distinction between the movement and the party. Also quite an American centric perspective. I don't think there is no difference between Macron and Le Pen or between SPD, die Linke, die Grünen and CDU.
I have a couple of thoughts.
First is that, at least were I'm from, the guy taking a picture on G20 would probably be frowned upon, if not worse. I get that it's used mostly as a springboard and the more general phenomenon does seem to exist, but I'm also not convinced showing a picture from each side does the subject all that much justice - there are probably differences in frequency and other factors. I'm pointing this out specially because I don't think most of the people on the given picture can really be described simply as Biden supporters and should fall farther off left from the positions being analysed and described, with reason, as actually very close.
My second thought is on how much the closeness of the perceived window of options is not itself a factor that pushes people to behave the way described - capitalist realism and what not. I'm not from the USA, but arguing from my local context, it seems to me "polarization" is to a large degree a symptom of depoliticization, and is also both conducive to and heightened by making things personal and casting away more systemic views.
I still see plenty of people who use luxury brands to boost their social standing. I live in a working class area where displaying Gucci, Mercedes, etc logos is very widespread. This use of brands to try to demonstrate a higher social status seems to fall outside of both the older branding and newer 'profilicity' systems which you describe. But then you do seem to be speaking more specifically about middle class behaviour.
Hanish pointed out or merely claimed?
I think you're underestimating (neo)liberalism's capacity to accommodate ideological differences and their consequences for people's lives. Ask minorities and other marginalized communities in the US, for example, about the differences in possibilities for live-ability/forms of existence under right and left expressions of power.
Calling the difference between the right and left minor (in the US at least) presupposes a position of relative privilege and safety many others don't enjoy, erasing the degrees of precarity with which people live. Yes, the dominant right and left are both shitty, but one is definitely shittier vis-a-vis live-ability under neoliberalism.
“I am a boring, conservative nerd; dork-like.”
Though it is true that personal investment in a cause and value of the cause vary with some independence, this video is overemphasising the differences between old politics and underemphasising the differences between new politics and religious branches. Because of this, I think this was the wrong way to argue for a true conclusion.
thanks for another great video! one thing that is not yet quite clear to me is why you (the way i understand you) make such a stark difference between the brand and the profile in advertising. aren't they functionally the same in the way that they add sign value to a commodity and do they not only differ in what gets signified explicitly and to what degree? sure, in societies with a more distinct class structure the emphasis might lie on the brand signifying class status, while in societies that profess to have overcome class altogether, ads might put the emphasis on "coolness" or "hipness" as seen in the apple commercials.
moreover, isn't the class status that the brand signifies itself a signifier pointing towards among others work ethic etc? this does get lost in my opinion, when you in this context say "a symbol which matches a quality you already have". no, the status symbol of the brand is not the mere status symbol of the nobleman who just happens to be rich. it is rather always also a "signal" which "gives you this very quality", as you put it, namely work ethic and so on and i fail to see how this is so different from the profile in advertising.
when you say "It [the profile] functions as a short cut to the buyer and avoids, at least to an extent, the detour via the thing.", is this not true, maybe to a smaller degree, for the brand as well? in other words: does not the brand always entail a profilistic moment?
You might be interested in Mbembe's argument that political has become more visceral than rational
Script is better
I just wanna say that is some hella confusing terminology to me. "Symbol" and "signal" mean literally the opposite of what i believe they would intuitively mean.
Yes I believe the meanings of the terms differ between academic disciplines: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics
How does that explain then those who attract only trouble to their "brand" when they expose their affiliation?
I've yet to see someone losing a job over declaring that he voted for Bernie Sanders. Can't say the same for Trump.
I tried to write a comment on your latest video but I realized almost everything I had to say was far more relevant to this one.
I wonder how your concept of profile building interacts with a few other specific concepts.
The first is true belief. Not a belief that is necessarily ‘true’ but rather a belief that one deeply holds and is convinced by. For example, I might believe that black people are unfairly discriminated against in our society and that this is wrong and that protest can help solve this issue. Is it really identity building in your view to go to a BLM protest?
Perhaps it’s not simply by going that we are constructing identity but what about taking selfies at a protest? Surely this is an example of profile building?
Except I can think of several times this would be false. Perhaps I don’t share the pictures online. Instead I save them to help me remember those moments. Wouldn’t there need to be an other for my selfie to be considered profile building? Even if I do post something online, it still doesn’t mean I’m doing to construct my own identity. Perhaps I post a protest selfie to make others aware of the cause that I believe in. I want to get your attention, but not for my own benefit or for feedback on my identity but because I want you to know that there are protests happening.
Let’s also look to the Nike example. What if I wear a logo but not because I identify with it but rather for some other reason? What if I find a Nike shirt in a thrift store and buy it because I think it’s incredibly comfortable? Can profile building be false in your view? If I’m not intentionally trying to signal the values that are mixed in to brand logos but do so anyways, can I really be said to be engaging in the act of identity building? How would an outsider familiar with your theories know what’s really going on?
very good questions. In profilicty beliefs can be just as true as in the modes of sincerity or authenticity. None of the modes is inherently more or less truthful. in sincerity you don't merely commit to your role for the sake of your own honor, but also to affirm your true belief in the rightness of family values. In authenticity you don't merely try to be "original" to be regarded as special, but also to affirm your true belief in the value of individuality. In profilicity you're not merely posting your BLM protest selfies to boost your profile but also to affirm your true belief in racial equality. in profilicity selfie taking( and -posting), and personal investment in true beliefs are mutually re-enforcing. Wanting others to know about the cause and curating your personal identity (as in sincerity and authenticity) are two moments of the same act. When you dedicate yourself "fully" to the cause, the cause also supplies you with a much-needed "full" identity. And: wearing a Nike shirt without knowing its meaning and still walking around with it is of course possible. It's similar to getting a Chinese character tattoo without knowing its meaning--and then walking around with it in China.
@@hans-georgmoeller7027 Interesting, thank you for the response!
Activism itself is associated with moral crusading or heroism which is a tool to increase individual social profile relevance.
I think you are not color grading your raw video
I emphatically disagree with what you say.
When what is at stake is both the economical structure but also the racial, sexual, and gender, and even religious, with the conflict between Atheism and Western Christianity, you are dealing with the very foundation of a City.
"Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything."
Ok. I believe in making money hand over fist even if I have to sacrifice the survivability of earth's ecosystems for the human species, so I'll just do it! What trash.
Please clean your camera lens! :)
20:58 onwards: I am from India, and hence there may be some gaps in my understanding of terms and phrases as used or understood in the "west". I am quite confused by what is referred to as "identity politics" in the videos I have watched that are made by people from the USA or UK or Europe. For example, when you speak about identiry politics emerging in the 1970s and "how we understand it today" and u say that politics in terms of race and gender identity is very different from "the personal is political" phase or concept - I just don't get it. Bcoz is not "identity politics" - working in terms of pressure groups - basically following the same idea i.e. collective action against political grievances? And race and gender have always been intrinsically linked with economic and political exploitation. And in India, we have the additional issue of the Brahminical Hindu caste system. I do not get how "identity politics" is not political in the same way as any other pressure group formed by exploited people to address their oppression.
P.S. 21:14 - isn't personal identity - race and gender - essentially political? Isn't that the whole point of the idea of "the personal is political" - racism & patriarchy are institutions and the personal identity of belonging to particular race or gender makes you of member of a particular "class" in the hierarchic structure of the institution, and that determines your economic position. How is this different from previous political struggle/activism/participation?