Nikolai S. Rozov wrote:
> just two points on Gareth's anthro-psychological question
>
> 1.
> when i studied psychology in 1970s it was one of most popular
> question with detalaised experimantal examination (Vygotsky, Piaget,
> Luria, Leontiev, Galperin etc)...
That's very interesting in itself -- my BA is actually in psychology and I
didn't see a single experiment dealing with consumerism. Perhaps such
research is less likely to get funding in this country (of course, I don't
know where you went to school -- I assume it was over there).
> 2.
> according to the posed problem i think one should take into account
> at least three kinds of human needs:
>
> a) needs for ethnocultural identification (are basic for
> preserving native traditions)
>
Not sure that this is a human need, as such. I think a feeling of
belonging and community might be the closest things, in which
ethnocultural identification can play a role. But this, I would argue, IS
aggressively targeted by Western media, intentionally or not: images of
Western stereotypes and ideals become associated with social status (b),
and are internalized as superior cultural forms. Cultural imperialism, as
someone pointed out, is the banner under which this has been studied. The
point being that, in the end, even if they can't afford higher social
status through material acquisition, they have subscribed to the Western
material metric. When I lived in Indonesia in the early 90's (we all
remember the early 90's, don't we?) everyone, right down to the unemployed
street denizens, revered symbols of Western culture such as
Harley-Davidson, Levi-Strauss, etc. -- all product brands. They might get
their hands on a pair of jeans -- never a Harley -- but that wasn't the
issue. They preferred to identify with Western culture, rather than their
own.
> b) establishing own social status (mainly in comparison
> with neighbours, relatives, various referent groups) - can be based
> both on native or imported value systems and identification
>
> c) needs for comfort ( reaching new levels but much more
> strong for preserving the current one)
>
> my hypothesis is that 'cultural-imperialistic mass-media' mainly
> works with b, suggesting new levels in c , but at the same time
> not-purposefully destroys a (the last is a major disaster for
> humanistically and PC-oriented anthropologists)
I don't know whether I'm a "PC-oriented anthropologist" or not, but you're
right -- it's silly to hold one's head in lamentation of cultural
homogenization -- if people are voluntarily giving up their traditions,
who are you to tell them it's wrong? But I would take issue with the lack
of purposefulness. American tobacco companies, as we've all probably
heard, have specifically targeted China as their last, great, un-tapped
market. A barrier to this is a cultural prohibition against women smoking.
They have taken this on, full force, with extensive advertising aimed at
undermining this taboo, as they did in this country in the 40's and 50's
(you've come a long way, baby). A culture can't remain whole when stripped
of all its traditions which happen to run afoul of capitalism. American
culture (if there is such an animal), for example, doesn't seem to be
handling it too well. Russia seems to be having trouble as well.
Gareth