Thoughts on Consumption

Instead of writing a single, cohesive response this week, I wanted to instead present a few general points that surfaced in my mind as I went through the readings.

The first is tied to the film Kung Fu Panda, and the ways in which it was able to make a culture that has historically been presented as so undeniably foreign, seem foreign, but yet also, somehow, at the same time, American. Although DreamWorks rather than Disney produced this particular film, I think that the trend towards the ‘McDisneyization’ of culture is equally visible here.

For one thing, when I stopped to really think about what culture was being represented in the film, I found that I could only go so far as to say “Asian” or, perhaps even worse, “Eastern.” How was this possible? Well, for starters, I think the creators of the film were very careful to include only the most general cultural signifiers that are associated with “Eastern” culture, such as martial arts (Kung Fu in particular is Chinese, but it is often conflated with Karate or the less well-known Judo, which are both Japanese), vague references to Buddhism, and the blending of architectural styles. Although this may or may not have been a conscious decision (I would argue one can be careful to do certain things without necessarily having to be conscious of why one is doing them), the visible muddling of East Asian cultures present in the film further augments the problematic conceptualization and perceived “familiarity” of American audiences with East Asian cultures as “culture.” To solidify the perceptual transformation of these cultural products from “foreign” to “American,” which has already begun to occur as the result of our increased consumption of these products removed from their cultural context, the character voices and dialogue were also extremely important in solidifying the domestic feel of the film. What does it mean, if anything, that the voice of “The Dragon Warrior” was a white American comedian/rock musician from Santa Monica, CA? Is this film really intending to represent East Asian culture(s), or it is meant merely to recreate the American interpretation of it/them?

The second point I wanted to raise was also tied to the film, particularly as it relates to travel, journey and/or adventure narratives. The beginning of the Bauman article opened with reference to King Pyrrhus and his insatiable desire for new conquests. This immediately led me to reflect once again on Kung Fu Panda, although this time as a serialized narrative, or at least on the seeming inevitability of the sequel. Although I haven’t quite gotten around to seeing Kung Fu Panda 2 myself, over the summer I worked with a group of elementary and middle school kids, many of whom were extremely excited to report that, after seeing the film, they were sure there was going to be a Kung Fu Panda 3. Of course, from a corporate perspective the huge financial incentives for this trend seem clear. But these financial incentives are at least in part due to the willingness of the audience to return, once again, to see familiar characters go on new (or perhaps not so new) adventures. What is it about a story that makes us want to come back for more?

This question also surfaced again more broadly for me on page 11, when, engaging Kierkegaard, Bauman wrote that “[t]hey all wish to ‘constantly finish and to begin again from the beginning’ and so to forget about that end which is bound to finish it all and beyond which there would be no more new beginnings.” After I got over my confusion, I was instantly reminded of the feeling I get when I know I am nearing the end of a favorite movie, or the equally disappointing realization that there are only a few more pages left of a good book. Although I have been reading or watching hungrily for however long it has been, yearning to get to the end of the text, when I finally get there, is immediately replaced by a subtle sort of disappointment that I have actually arrived at my destination. What should be satisfaction has somehow already been replaced by a desire to consume more/again. Hoes does this fit into Bauman’s argument surrounding the need, desire, and wish?

Finally, and on an entirely separate note, I also found myself thinking quite a bit about the relationship between consumerism and academia. To what extent are we, as academics, being trained to be products or to market ourselves as such? Particularly with the heavy emphasis placed on publishing both books and articles, as well as presenting at conferences etc, I wonder how much of the current state of academia can be understood or explained as a result of our consumer culture. In addition, I also think about the importance of curating a professional identity as an academic, particularly online through websites such as academia.edu as well as personal WebPages and/or blogs. This in particular makes me think about consumerism as a hopelessly endless cycle, where we are not only required to maintain all of these different representations of our self as a product (which is exhausting and, at least for me, seems quite impossible), but then at the same time we are also expected to consume (and somehow keep up with) the products of others (i.e. reading/buying books, subscribing to professional groups like SCMS, reading articles, attending conferences, networking etc.). I am not entirely sure where I would like us to go with this last point, but because academia has (in my opinion) a tendency to situate itself outside the realm of such issues, I think it is even more important for us to consider it as a product of consumerism.