Too Much Convincing, Too Few Convictions

July 31, 2008

 What if the most consistent thing in a person’s life was both the most secure and the least genuine?  We hate to say it but what if some people are striving to make their lives resemble stories that are designed to deliver disassociation from their lives?

Remember that instantaneous information was once science fiction.  Perhaps on the edge of possibility , but the network of advertising and marketing motives was no where near as competitive, and we cringe to say it, sophisticated.  It sounded like pure altruism, what could be wrong with being well informed.  Security is abound, community – re-enforced.

On the other hand we get a little worried when people go through too much trouble trying to convince us of things.  Of all the cultural institutions we’ve nurtured, advertisers are always in a state of war.  War with each other, you and the industries they spearhead.  Though for them production values have plateau’ed and all that’s left is to twist and abuse reality so that we feel like we need to keep pace with them in order to feel normal amongst ourselves.   This is the behavior that predicates zealotry.  It’s a common comic book characterization; the villain has invested so much of their ego into an endeavor that they begin to think that everyone’s their victim. As their brand of foul play becomes more common said zeal portrays everyone as being both like them as admirers and beneath them as prey.  Since they perceive themselves as the incubator of this culture the flaws in their reasoning cast no reflection.

Unfortunately this is a part of the human condition, albeit an abuse; sound presumption is a motivation for a number of very admirable human traits.  Love, sympathy, empathy, compassion; all are a part of things that enrich our tools for reasoning while relying on our interpretation, not our participation.

So what are advertisers afraid of, are they so conditioned by their own rearing that they think working within a convoluted box is better than having more than one paradigm.  Or are they so aware that the majority of products are just a one-off of other products or concepts that they’re afraid that companies won’t be able to match the opportunities they create with actual quality?

We wonder how people would react if they realized that exercising a genuinely free-will indoctrinates their self-esteem with an unimpressionable contentment.  Would opportunities for companies to farm people’s confidence limit competition to those that are innovating our experiences instead of dragging them out so that they can slip out before the bill comes.

Sugar Stock would like to see some convictions behind merchandising, something substantially relevant to a direction the world and/or we needs to go in.  Not just hit-and-run profiteering, we’d like to see corporations that are trying to influence us from sea to sea stand for a national community that respects the cyclic nature of consumption not just the disposable impulses that seduce need.  We’d like to see more corporations being accountable to culture, not just trying to vie for manufacturing stewardships.  When so many of our products and economics are intended to be outsourced a situation is created where business practices are in direct conflict with its and our own sustainability.

Simultaneously we have stock exchanges that attempt to look only devicively ahead so that they can profit from change and predicate future profits.  So in order to stay in that business change needs to be manageable, therefore there’s the likelihood that progress becomes prescribed to benefit very few.  For most people that means being on the wrong end of a mugging.   As far as we can tell that’s a lot of commerce being directed away from the consumer and towards wealth maintenance.  It’s a retardation of barter so that some can bank the quality of their lives at the expense of other people’s labor.  We should be more clear; it’s theft under the guise of a due process that this government (America) always finds itself in negotiations with.  As it tries to avoid looking like the oligarchy it really is and forget that that is the precise disaster its founders were trying to avert.  Again most of the politicians you support with tongue-in- cheek rhetoric aren’t smart enough to notice.

In reality it’s an addiction like any other.  Something that is maintained in short supply, either because only so much can be consumed at any one time therefore it assumes an unrealistic value; or because some people have created a deficiency so that only their slightly juicy fruit is worth anything to anybody.  Perhaps people don’t return to products because they’ve been convinced of anything, maybe they return to them because they’re just trying to maintain relative sanity.

How far back was it when people began expecting the truth to require so much explanation?  Have they been collectively trained to avoid it?  Expected to maintain self-esteem by appeasing the sensibilities of whomever they got stuck with walking down the street, listening to the radio, watching TV.  After a point every segue to our casual entertainment becomes so lousy with pitches that we tend to tune it all out and wait for some other sucker to buy their crap first.  Which sounds fine in and of itself except that marketers are waiting in the wings to sick premeditated suckers on us.  After the endless barrage of – sorry no, assault of marketing ploys and pedestals we wondered what would happen if some of us couldn’t disconnect.  What form would what we just described take on?

Incidentally we’re rather certain that you have the theaters themselves to blame for pre-preview, pre-trailer commercials.  We love theaters like anyone else but in New York City after we’ve spent twelve dollars on the remaining two-thirds of a movie, what’s left after all the baiting, we think going “postal” on any further assaults on our mind, from strangers and friends alike, becomes significantly more rational.  Maybe that’s because we have more to guard than some of you, and more to offer to all of you.