I keep coming to (friendly) blows with John Doe in my class who in good Adorno and Horkheimer fashion tends to see ALL popular culture as good for nothing. We were arguing about the political positioning of English-Sri Lankan rapper M.I.A. He suggested that M.I.A’s cross-cultural anti-establishment aesthetic was just as empty as Madonna’s various guises due to their marketability.
Now it IS true that M.I.A. commodifies herself and her politics and that she IS embedded within the capitalist ideology.
This is what I want to ask: Is this necessarily a bad thing?
Isn’t everything commodified? – even Iggy Pop? (sorry Felicity)
In my opinion, the mere fact that something is commodified and cleverly marketed does not of itself drain a cultural machine of its political meaning.
Instead, shouldn’t we be asking:
- What concepts is the commodity selling?
- What kinds of desire are being produced?
Madonna was ultimately selling herself as a symbol of economic power through the manipulation of self-image. M.I.A. on the other hand is selling a certain brand of politics. She is successful at it but we can’t deny that she is genuine with her politics. Or can we? (I love her.)
Perhaps we could also ask:
- What aesthetic is being used?
- Is the commodity a result of prescriptive determinants
M.I.A.’s aesthetic incorporates a myriad of sounds from various world musics.
Here we see the commodification of images and sounds of the third world.
Is this the most deplorable thing you’ve seen in the world. Or do you think something more valuable is going on here?
6 responses so far ↓
Yosh // April 9, 2008 at 11:58 pm |
You raise a very valuable point, I think, Brad. Commodification, in the broadest sense, is so pervasive that it would be wildly generalising to condemn every part of our culture which is bought and sold. I think the questions you suggest are good ones as far as determining the relative value of any part of consumer culture.
I don’t know much about M.I.A., but I don’t see why reconfiguration of cultural signifiers has to be exploitative. Isn’t that kind of reconfiguration what ‘postmodernism’ (lol) is all about?
zorarah // April 15, 2008 at 5:53 am |
M.I.A. is a very interesting figure to consider (wish I’d thought of her!) because, as you say, her politics are inseparable from her musical/artistic intent, and therefore her politics are undoubtedly commodified along with the music she sells.
But when you consider that there have been claims that she is actually funneling profits from her music into funding the the Tamil Tigers… well, that ads a whole new dimension to the question! If she is genuinely attempting to affect the change she sings about, by funding a ‘terrorist’ organisation with the profits from her commodified politics, well, that’s one bloody interesting machine I’d say!
Tamil Tigers > M.I.A. > Music/Politics > Money> Tamil Tigers> Real-life Political change?? (ok, probably not, but it’s an interesting thought)
Or, as a friend of mine once delightfully described it: Terrorism spawns fat beats!
Zora // April 23, 2008 at 9:01 pm |
While I remain an adornoean to the bitter end, thoroughly convinced that most mass culture is a homogenized abomination, I’d have to agree with you that, yes, certainly everything, even music/literature that induces critical thought, is a commodity, even Iggy Pop, brilliant misanthrope though he is!! Look at Gang of Four? They signed to a major label, and, while they were fully aware of the apparent hypocrisy this engendered, it was necessary in order to get their message to the masses.
Love your blog.
P.S. What do you have against Foucault? His conception of the panopticon as well as the integration of psychiatry as a means of control over the individual has proven nothing if not accurate. *smiles* Plus, he kicked Chomsky’s ass in their debate, and did so with none of Chomsky’s all too persistent pedantry
Brad // April 24, 2008 at 2:01 am |
Zora – I have nothing against Foucault theoretically. He’s just butt ugly. The thing about Gang of Four is that signing to a major label in itself doesn’t say anything about the affects of their commodification. They were commodified from the get go surely?
By the way, thanks for the kudos!
machinepeople // April 25, 2008 at 4:23 am |
This could make for a really interesting essay if you feel like pursuing it.
Mark // December 14, 2008 at 6:08 am |
I’m writing a paper about WALL-E through the lens of adornoean philosophy, and I stumbled onto this blog. I like it. Brad, you ask the right questions, and your mindset is similar to mine. If it takes commodifying a set of ideals to get more people to subscribe, then isn’t that a smart move? Our responsibility as a society then becomes to create and consume socially beneficial works. If an artful commodity steers clear from deception, it becomes a viable choice for a politically minded consumer.