Capitalism
experience. 33 This division between ‘I’ and experience has been mobilized to enforce the concept that our brains, with all their enchanting capabilities for logic and rhetoric, are superior to our bodies, hence teaching us to neglect and violate our bodies and put all our faith in our intellect. Those who maintain this ideology are more likely to sell their bodies (labour), as what their physical body endures becomes irrelevant, conquered by the abstract things that ‘I’ has been taught to desire (e.g. fame, marriage, wealth). The nebulous nature of ‘brain - related’ desire automatically renders it insatiable; as an abstract idea it is physically unable to materialize, encouraging us to turn to a conveyor belt of products to achieve satisfaction – all avenues increasing the profit of the capitalist. This internal division is the premise that capitalism was created upon, and the primary way in which it maintains itself as the (divided) identity is more susceptible to advertisement. The entire economy is dependent on it, designed to produce happiness in a vicious circle, creating a stream of stimulants, as if to replace the ‘stream’ of consciousness . Our cravings for more, for louder, faster and more stimulating, live in symbiosis with capitalism’s model of constantly releasing products with only cosmetic differences . But carvings for more also drive people to work for low wages, to attain the things that are killing them. Moreover, most people are aware of this cycle, but the block between their brain and body prevents change. The divided identity is also reinforced by the recent developments in technology, particularly social media, cementing the division between us and reality by positioning us as observers of our own lives, curating our lives, creating yet another dimension of interchange even further from reality. (I do not mention the echo-chambers that people inhabit, which lead to further polarization.) This ‘created identity,’ the ‘I’ they have created, is so deeply entrenched in our psyches, and so deeply intertwined with capitalism that often only those who cannot conform can notice it, step outside of it, and attempt to help others do the same. The internal division previously described is an individual microcosm for capitalism itself; just as the brain is clever enough to see the vicious cycle it creates but is unable to change it, people can often see the vicious cycle of capitalism but feel they are unable to change it. Which is why I argue that any social change must begin within the individual. Currently, in the words of Fisher, ‘so long as we believe (in our hearts) that capitalism is bad, we are free to continue to participate in capitalist exchange. According to Zizek, capitalism in general relies on this structure of di savowal.’ 34 This contradiction between the mental and the physical, between inner subjective attitude and outside behaviour, can only survive with this internal division. Fisher describes it as ‘a pervasive atmosphere, conditioning not only the production of culture but also the regulation of work and education, and acting as a king of invisible barrier constraining thought and action.’ Yet for it to work, the barrier must occur within the psyche, meaning that it is so deeply embedded, that even a moral critique of capitalism (always presented as vague, symbolic, and palatable) serves to reinforce the ‘reflexive impotence’ discussed earlier. The idea of reform becomes naïve utopianism. It produces governed citizens that find solutions in products rather than political processes. This barrier also lends workers a subjective disinvestment from their tasks that enables them to continue to perform labour that is pointless and demoralizing. Just as it is the only way that one can disapprove of violence while being protected by the sanctioned violence of the state, of course assisted by the vast epistemic gulf in the perception of policing between the ‘policed’ and the ‘protected.’ Again, importantly, this barrier can be a form of self -protection, trying to protect oneself by splitting in two, separating one’s values and opinions from one’s actions. Yet that does not
33 Hawkins 1994. 34 Fisher 2009.
71
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator