New Media and the Commodification of Catharsis
Charlie Chaplin, Herbert Marcuse, and WWE
Why will societal criticism today be sold en masse by a corporation tomorrow? Worsening media reflections of an exploitative cultural system paint a bleak forecast for the future. Increasingly, our thoughts and ideas are becoming commodities, and meaningful societal change feels impossible.
Introduction
Modern capitalist society has increasingly been viewed as an absurd system. Workers have lost ownership of the ‘fruits of their labor,’ while capitalists find themselves chained to an insatiable process (Boltanski & Chiapello, 1999). Why do people subscribe to an exploitative system that relies on perpetual growth for success? In The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1905), Max Weber describes the Protestant work ethic as a crucial force in the approval and development of modern capitalism. Indeed, religious principles that place value in hard work have historically been the “spirit” of capitalism — the ideology that justifies people’s commitment to the system (Boltanski & Chiapello, 1999).
Since the advent of the industrial revolution, life under capitalism has been criticized for its repetitive, dehumanizing nature through popular media (see Franz Kafka’s The Metamorphosis, 1915; or Modern Times by Charlie Chaplin, 1936). In The New Spirit of Capitalism (1999), Boltanski and Chiapello define these early critiques of capitalism as the artistic critique: a satirization of individuals’ loss of creativity and autonomy in industrial life. The artistic critique became successful in drawing attention to the problems of capitalism, consequently breaking down the “spirit” of the Protestant work ethic, and diminishing worker morale and productivity around the 1960’s.
Subsequently, according to Boltanski and Chiapello (1999), a “new spirit” of capitalism has been revitalized since the 1960s. Capitalist society has adopted a new narrative to counteract the consequences of the artistic critique. Instead of eliminating people’s autonomy and creativity, capitalism now engages people based on autonomy and creativity — a phenomenon that has transpired concurrently with the rise of new media. Digital innovation itself has been marketed as a largely independent and creative endeavor, despite its likeness to previous enterprises under the same capitalist system. Self-branding and self-realization have become fundamental promoted components of this new narrative, successfully re-engaging people in the same system that had been previously condemned.
Today, despite this romantic narrative, public criticism of modern institutions is ubiquitous. Yet, condemnation of the establishment has been largely unsuccessful in provoking real change. Intriguingly, rebellion against the dominant order is not only permitted by the system, but it is commodified under the new capitalist narrative. While disillusionment surfaces in an era that feels increasingly dystopian, media outlets propagate bite-sized pieces of dissatisfaction that only strengthen the system they were meant to attack. As was envisaged in the classic Society of the Spectacle by Guy Debord (1967):
“Dissatisfaction itself becomes a commodity as soon as the economics of affluence finds a way of applying its production methods to this particular raw material.”
Criticism and Mass Media
The role of societal disillusionment as a commodity can be explained by the pervasive narratives of the mass media. Indeed, media spectacles have been proliferated by modern tech industries, and spectacle itself (see Debord, 1967) has become one of the elemental organizing principles of the economy, politics, culture, and daily life (Kellner, 2002). Debord’s philosophy portrays a media and consumer society organized around the production and consumption of images, commodities, and narratives. Thus, as Kellner (2002) notes, the Internet-based economy has been crucial in the development of spectacle as a means of promotion, reproduction, and the circulation and selling of commodities. Subsequently, critical discourse on the system itself is circulated and sold within the confines of this scheme.
The circulation of media narratives is one of the most essential instigators of this phenomenon. The mass media interprets — and simplifies — the world for consumers through the use of narratives. Stodden and Hansen (2015) metaphorically liken the mass media’s dissemination of information to the dynamics of professional wrestling, wherein a known false narrative is demonstrated as truth. In the sport of professional wrestling, the term Kayfabe describes the staged events and predetermined narratives that are treated as true. As in wrestling, Kayfabe — the false narrative — is maintained throughout all avenues of mass media. As in Society of the Spectacle, Debord’s prediction of being declining into having, and having into merely appearing, is evident as we regress from being informed to merely having information.
The ‘bad guys’ in media narratives (dubbed “heels” in wrestling) are the power-houses of narrative propagation, as can be observed through the persistent media attacks on controversial individuals and groups (Barack Obama, Donald Trump, immigrants, etc.). According to the New York Times article, CNN Had a Problem. Donald Trump Solved It. (2017): “As [Jeff Zucker, President of CNN] sees it, his pro-Trump panelists are not just spokespeople for a worldview; they are ‘characters in a drama’.” Even the attorney of Alex Jones, infamous spreader of embellished narratives, has alleged that Jones is simply “playing a character in his public persona” (Tilove, 2017).
The untrustworthy nature of the mass media originates from the for-profit system it resides within. Media companies require profits; therefore, lucrative storytelling methods are indispensable. Sociologist Jean Baudrillard notes the mass media’s operation within the same realm as advertisements, recognizing that the difference between reality and marketing is almost impossible to discern. Moreover, Baudrillard asserts we are complicit in the charade:
“The most serious problems posed by advertising derive less from the unscrupulousness of those who fool us than from our pleasure in being fooled” (The Uncollected Baudrillard, 2001, p. 72).
The illusory narratives emanating from Donald Trump are evidence of this phenomenon. Comparable to those shackled in Plato’s allegorical cave, Trump wholeheartedly believes in the reality fed to him by his television, by his loyal subordinates, and perhaps by the intrusive thoughts that pop into his head. Trump not only exudes and endorses fabricated stories, but he recognizes that his narrative is more important than the truth. As a businessman, Trump sticks to his brand and his performance. As the “heel” of the news media, this has secured him $2 billion in free media to assist with his presidential campaign (Confessore & Yourish, 2016).
The commodification of media and the proliferation of false narratives can perceptibly be criticized as harmful, as these conceptions shield us from the truth — and prevent us from inciting change, as our attempts to instigate become absorbed into the narrative. The New York Times article, Is Everything Wrestling? (2016), offers a grim point: “[U]ltimately, we can’t expect that post-truth culture will somehow collapse because of its perfidiousness. The WWE, for instance, now tells its story without challenge: It’s outlasted all its major competitors and holds the rights to the very images wrestling’s history is made of. […] If a story is told well, if its history seems consistent, then the machinations putting it into place can be temporarily overlooked or turned into a fun story of their own. And why not? In the end, we’re all marks for a world we want to believe in” (Gordon 2016).
The Commodification of Catharsis
The modern commodification of dissatisfaction can be explained by the mass media’s reflection of capitalist society. Philosopher Herbert Marcuse notes that the modern spirit of production and distribution creates an established order that eliminates the distinction between private and public existence, and between individual and social needs (Marcuse, 1964). Privacy has been eroded by new media, which has strengthened individuals’ identifications with society. Relatedly, Fuchs (2013) finds modern media platforms to be reflections of society’s blurring between leisure and labor, production and consumption, new forms of value production, and accelerated consumption. Individuals replicate — and thus propagate — the controls exercised by society. Consequently, according to Marcuse, the system no longer requires introjection of its values into an individual, due to the internalization of accepted beliefs and behaviors.
Building on these concepts, Moore, Wolff, & Marcuse (1965) explain how novel ideas are rapidly evaluated in terms of existing societal conditions. Accordingly, commercialization aims to transform contradictory dialogue into discourse on the system’s own terms. To accomplish this, the mass media cleverly publishes hostile ideas as containing some token of truth, rather than hiding or denying any societal critique. Furthermore, Marcuse explains, the centralization of media control and the mass distribution of information are not the sources of this indoctrination. Instead, these platforms perpetuate the class politics and power relations that already exist in modern capitalist society. Through mass broadcasting, these platforms conceal these discrepancies through the calculated dissemination of compliant and digestible information. Ideas that are not compliant with the fundamentals of the capitalist system will appear to be irrational or neurotic.
As a consequence of these techniques, the new narrative of capitalism utilizes the power of positive reinforcement. Positive reinforcement applies subtle, yet powerful, control over individuals. As critical commentary emerges, individuals are granted a small amount of freedom to express their dissatisfaction through media. As a result, people feel that they are free to do what they desire. Thus — and perhaps, by design — the question of our freedom rarely arises where it should (see Skinner, 1948). We are directed to trust that there is nothing to revolt against, as our incompatible discourse is converted into a commercially-marketable catharsis.
What’s Next?
A good produced with the sole intent of selling it at market price is a commodity. Karl Marx coined the term commodity fetishism to describe the perception of products having objective values based on relationships between people (Marx, 1867). Indeed, commodities have value within the context of social trends, and modern capitalism commodifies everything — and everyone. Beyond the propagation of ideas as products, Bolin (2007) notes the ever-increasing significance of the media audience itself as a commodity. Communication is already commodified. Now, in an age of “technological convergence and textual divergence,” content is more difficult to control and capitalize on. As a result, media industries secure economic revenue by commodifying us, the audience, through the sale of the statistical aggregate to advertisers (Bolin, 2007).
While the new narrative of capitalism engages us based on creativity and individuality, our thoughts and beliefs are increasingly becoming commodities in the system. Criticism of society seems futile. After all, why should anyone bother trying to change capitalism if insurrection today will become someone’s bottom-line tomorrow? New media plays a major role in the reduction and commodification of our beliefs while perpetuating deceptive narratives. As a society, we now face the exponentially worsening impacts of planetary exploitation, growing questions of inequality, and the emergence of copious goods and services that do not address human needs. Many people now find themselves in what feels like a progressively worsening cycle, and are hoping unrestrained capitalism will change before it is too late.
However, the imminent crossroads are not necessarily characterized by doom-and-gloom. Marx describes capitalism as a historical phase that will eventually collapse due to its internal contradictions. The means of production, Marx explains, currently benefit the owners of capital at the expense of workers, which is driving a growing gap between the rich and the poor. The resolution of these contradictions, according to Marx, will produce the conditions that instigate a political revolution. Marx argues that workers would be liberated after seizing the means of production, which would address many of the ethical critiques of modern society.
As demonstrated by the media-proliferated commodification of disillusionment, society is shamelessly market-based. Marxist thought suggests that this might ultimately be its demise. Capitalism paradoxically demands infinite growth on a planet with finite resources. Eventually, either workers will no longer tolerate their circumstances, or exploitation will no longer be profitable as capitalists face the true costs of their enterprises. In this sense, the problem of commodification may also be the solution, as the necessities for functioning markets become no longer available. In the words of environmental historian Jason W. Moore:
“The issue is not one of anthropogenic-drivers — presuming a fictitious human unity — but of the relations of capital and capitalist power. The issue is not the Anthropocene, but the Capitalocene” (Moore, 2016).
Baudrillard, J., & Genosko, G. (2001). The uncollected Baudrillard. London: SAGE.
Bolin, G. (2007). Media Technologies, Transmedia Storytelling and Commodification. Ambivalence towards Convergence Digitalization and Media Change, 237–248.
Boltanski, L., & Chiapello, E. (1999). The new spirit of capitalism. London: Verso.
Chaplin, C. (Director). (1936). Modern Times [Video].
Confessore, N. and Yourish, Karen. (2016, March 15). $2 Billion Worth of Free Media for Donald Trump. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/upshot/measuring-donald-trumps-mammoth-advantage-in-free-media.html
Debord, G. (2010). Society of the Spectacle. Detroit: Black & Red.
Fuchs, C. (2013). Digital prosumption labour on social media in the context of the capitalist regime of time. Time & Society, 23(1), 97–123. doi:10.1177/0961463x13502117
Gordon, J. (2016, May 27). Is Everything Wrestling? Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/27/magazine/is-everything-wrestling.html
Kafka, F. (2018). The Metamorphosis. United States: Golden Classics.
Kellner, D. (2002). Theorizing Globalization. Sociological Theory, 20(3), 285–305.
Mahler, J. (2017, April 4). CNN Had a Problem. Donald Trump Solved It. The New York Times Magazine. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/04/magazine/cnn-had-a-problem-donald-trump-solved-it.html
Marcuse, H. (1964). One Dimensional Man. London: Abacus.
Marx, Karl and Engles, Frederick. Collected Works: Capital, vol.1. New York: International Publishers, 1996.
Moore, B., Jr., Wolff, R. P., & Marcuse, H. (1965). A Critique of Pure Tolerance.
Moore, J. W. (2016). The End of Cheap Nature. Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying about “The” Environment and Love the Crisis of Capitalism.
Skinner, B. F. (1948). Walden two. Indianapolis: Hackett Publ.
Stodden, W. P., & Hansen, J. S. (2015). Politics by kayfabe: Professional wrestling and the creation of Public opinion.
Tilove, J. (2017, April 20). On the stand, Alex Jones testifies he means what he says on Infowars. Statesman. Retrieved from https://www.statesman.com/news/20170420/on-the-stand-alex-jones-testifies-he-means-what-he-says-on-infowars
Weber, M. (1905). Protestant ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.
