"Matters to whom" is a point well taken. There are brilliant exceptions to
my assertion, still, I contend, the driving force of this and of most
Western societies, but America especially, is the pursuit of individual
wealth. Maybe that's a good thing. Certainly wealth that frees the
individual to pursue aesthetic and intellectual values is good in my book.
But that's not the goal, as I see it, in our pursuit of wealth. Wealth
itself is the goal. I appreciate that you answered my question. But I
disagree with your answer, Mr. Sen notwithstanding. The individual pursuit
of wealth as opposed to a societal wealth is the root of so much inequity in
American life. If wealth were not all that mattered, you folks in
advertising would have to work for a living -- just kidding. But
consumerism is a friendly child of wealth, not its nemesis. Guess we'll
just have to agree to disagree.
Mike Geary Memphis
On 2005/09/14, at 14:43, Mike Geary wrote:
"Do you really think that anything matters in America besides money? Like, maybe -- what?"
Matters to whom? For what purpose? Judging from the content of mass and other media, food, fashion, family, relationships, sport, travel, music, celebrities, cars.... all sorts of things, at least to some of the people some of the time. If money were all that mattered, choices would all come down to price and us fellows who work in advertising would all be out of business.
I direct your attention to Amartya Sen, who in (I believe) _Inequality Reexamined_ observes that all discussions of fairness assume equality on some dimension. Where they differ is in the dimensions they choose to prioritize. Sen goes on to argue that contemporary political and economic debate revolve around two models of fairness, one in which equality is measured in dollars (or any other legal tender of your choice), the other in which equality is measured in human beings.
The first supplies the logic of corporate shareholding; if I own more shares, worth more dollars, it is fair for me to have a bigger say than you who owns fewer shares, is worth fewer dollars, and thus has less say.
The second supplies the logic of democratic elections; the rule is one voter, one vote. (There are, of course, issues concerning who is allowed to vote. Please bracket these for the sake of the broader argument.)
As Sen sees it, we are caught up in a global debate over which of these models should be given priority or, if taken to the extreme, exclude the other. When those like yourself who ask, "Do you really think that anything matters....besides money?" The answer is, of course. There is a tacit assumption that fairness model 1 (the dollar model) has become so dominant that fairness model 2 (the human model) is irrelevant, as are any competing models (doing God's will, living one's dharma, that sort of thing). But if that were truly so, the sorts of debates in which we continually find ourselves embroiled would, long since, have come to an end.
They haven't. QED.
John L. McCreery The Word Works, Ltd. 55-13-202 Miyagaya, Nishi-ku Yokohama, Japan 220-0006
Tel 81-45-314-9324 Email jlm@xxxxxxxxxxxx
"Making Symbols is Our Business"
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
