December 28, 2005

• Topic: Anarchist anthropologists and why you shouldn’t take thing personally, how advertising targets people’s needs/desires vs making people into targets, strangers in falafel shops

  
  

  Working backwards through the topics, I went to my favorite falafel shop last night, Mahmoud’s, on Macdougal st. in the West Village.  I had a couple of hours to kill before meeting up briefly w/ one of my best college buddies who was in town.  The food is quick and delicious, for only $2.75.  There’s only two booths, so I asked this Asian guy if he minded if I squeezed in across from him.  He commented on how amazing it was to find something so quick and delicious, for only $2.75.  I commented on how I was just thinking the same thing.  We chatted briefly, he’s a 3L at New York Law School, and now that his time in NYC is winding down, he’s trying to make the most of it. 

  
  

  Funny how it takes a sense of “ending” to drive us to “begin” doing things.  The end of college, the end of a trip, the end of the summer, the end of our lives….

  
  

  I ducked into a coffee shop next door for some cocoa and to read a bit of this book, “The buddha of Surburbia,” that a friend lent to me.  Just like going to the gym, I’m trying to do just a couple of hours of reading each day, or every other day.  This book is sort-of-a Catcher in the Rye taking place in Eng.  It’s about a 17-yr. old boy who feels a bit trapped in a South London suburb.  His dad, who is from India, becomes enchanted with Buddhism, and as his reputation and eccentric behavior grows, it causes strainings on the son.  The story also touches on racism against Indians, as well as the conflict of free-spiritied children against their parents’ old-world ways, such as when the main characters cousin is set-up in an arranged marriage, and her father goes on a hunger strike when she attempts to rebel.

  
  

  Buddhism, like other life philosophies and religions, I believe has its benfits and risks.  The benefits I see include mindfulness and calm, while the risks include escapism.  To me, it is just as important to understand the material world as it is to “make peace with oneself in a world taken over by materialism.”  To me, understanding people, science, history, culture, sociology, psychology, and having a sense of balance between seriousness and playfulness are the tools that can lead to a “good life,” a life of joy, a life not overcome with suffering.  While retreating into mediation and thought, or living in the woods, certainly has its benefits, I believe that in order to truly “survive” the modern world, one should not try to escape it.  And I’m sure there’s somethning in Buddhism, or Taoism, or probably Christianity, Judaism, or Islam, that says something along those lines, of being like water and fitting into the cracks and molding to your surroundings, of keeping values while adjusting to the times.

  
  

  There was an article in today’s Times about an anthropology professor, Dr. David Graeber, at Yale who was recently released from his position as an associate professor.  No specific reasons were given, but Graeber believes it is because of his open political views, specifically those in favor of anarchism.  His story is interesting, as well as his political views that support anarchism (which does not stand for chaos, but rather a belief that people govern best when they govern themselves w/out a central gov’t). 

  
  

  But one of my favorite comments in the article was by another professor, who said that Dr. Graeber was being to focussed on himself and his being let-go from his position, rather than being the anthropologist that he is, and seeing how he has not been isolated for being a lone-radical, but rather how the system itself at Yale is designed to make associate professors expendible.

  
  

  I think that’s a great idea to take away…that we shouldn’t always take things personally.  We shouldn’t look at isolated things in life and think that whole world has conspired against us.  We shouldn’t look at a person’s single actions and make a blanket judgement on that person.  Rather, we should try to understand the situation in a more rational/objective, though no less human way, than we normally would.  Why did I get fired?  Why did I not get this job?  Why did I do poorly on this test?  Why do I feel so depressed?  Why doesn’t this relationship work?  Without abandoning the uniqueness of our lives, we can still begin to analyze them in broader terms.  We can see how people bring certain assumptions and values everywhere they go.  What you may consider shallow, is just someone who sees money and wealth as an indicator of high class.  What you may consider laziness might be the product of a lifetime of abuse or neglect that has eroded or failed to build confidence and drive in an individual.  What one person sees as fair, another will see as unjust.

  
  

  There’s a big problem in our society with understanding issues from various angles.  It certainly is no easy task, but the task of communicating openly with others is made more difficult in our culture of attack, in which we try not to understand how or why people hold certain opinions, but we try to discredit them through names and labels.

  
  

  Lastly, I’d like to talk about advertising.  You might have noticed more healthy foods hitting the marketplace.  Orange juice with calcium.  Whole wheat bread.  Soon there will be Dannon yogurts with a special bacteria to aid in digestion hitting the market.  Are corporations suddenly interested in people’s health, or are people suddenly interested in their own health?  I think this change shows how corporations and people’s needs can come together.  Corporations are built to profit.  People have desires.  In many instances, these two things have bad consequences (negative externalities is the term economists use).  People love fatty foods, so McDonald’s sells cheap food that over time can kill you.  Same thing with cigarettes.  People love easy to follow and mind-numbing entertainment, so tv producers come up w/ an endless barrage of reality tv.  People love to shop and consume, so corporations pump out advertising in every corner to address that love.

  
  

  As people’s desires change, corporations will be forced to change as well.  If people start to become more mindful of their health, as they are, food companies will advertise healthier food.  If people become more mindful of their entertainment, tv shows will be less about celebrities figure skating, and more about major issue facing society.  As people begin to turn off their televisions and read, tv networks will be forced to make their shows more intelligent. 

  
  

  A corporations is made up of people and is responsible to people.  Its responsibility is to its owners and shareholders to make profits, and to do so, its responsibility is to its consumers to give them what they want.  Positive, healthy, capitalism is not an oxymoron.  It’s merely 100 years away….

  
  

  Tonight’s movie…”You Can’t be Neutral on a Moving Train,” by Howard Zinn!!!

  
  

   

  • 11:15 am
  • 1 Comment