The brand guidelines piece was really not working but from that, a new, stronger idea has come up. Through my reading for this project, I've realised that much of the identity theory text reads as quite a sinister manifesto.
I intend to reappropriate the best quotes in the style of political posters and collate them into a similar idea as before, a tongue in cheek guide for brands.
The piece will read as a guide to 'get inside their minds' (possible title) and will take the most relevent and sinister of quotes from my essay sources and place them into some sort of large scale poster book.
The piece will read as a guide to 'get inside their minds' (possible title) and will take the most relevent and sinister of quotes from my essay sources and place them into some sort of large scale poster book.
•
Marx
Marx
Let us now consider the residue of each of these products; it consists
of the same unsubstantial reality in each; they are merely congealed quantities
of homogeneous human labour.
Wherever the want of clothing forced them to it, the human race made
clothes for thousands of years, without a single man becoming a tailor. But
coats and linen, like every other element of material wealth that is not the
spontaneous produce of Nature, must invariably owe their existence to a special
productive activity, exercised with a definite aim, an activity that
appropriates particular nature-given materials to particular human wants.
So far therefore as labour is a creator of use value, is useful labour,
it is a necessary condition, independent of all forms of society, for the
existence of the human race; it is an eternal nature-imposed necessity, without
which there can be no material exchanges between man and nature, and therefore
no life.
so soon as it steps forth as a commodity, it is changed into something transcendent.
Through this substitution, the products of labour become commodities, sensuous things which are at the same time supra-sensible or social.
I call this the fetishism which attaches itself to the products of labour as soon as they are produced as commodities, and which is therefore inseparable from the production of commodities.
And for a society based upon the production of commodities, in which the producers in general enter into social relations with one another by treating their products as commodities and values, whereby they reduce their individual private labour to the standard of homogeneous human labour
the process of production has the mastery over man, instead of being controlled by him, such formulae appear to the bourgeois intellect to be as much a self-evident necessity imposed by nature as productive labour itself.
To what extent some economists are misled by the fetishism inherent in commodities, or by the objective appearance of the social characteristics of labour, is shown, amongst other ways, by the dull and tedious quarrel over the part played by nature in the formation of exchange value. Since exchange value is a definite social manner of expressing the amount of labour bestowed upon an object, nature has no more to do with it, than it has in fixing the course of exchange.
Could commodities themselves speak, they would say: Our use value may be a thing that interests men. It is no part of us as objects. What, however, does belong to us as objects, is our value. Our natural intercourse as commodities proves it. In the eyes of each other we are nothing but exchange values. Now listen how those commodities speak through the mouth of the economist.
so soon as it steps forth as a commodity, it is changed into something transcendent.
Through this substitution, the products of labour become commodities, sensuous things which are at the same time supra-sensible or social.
I call this the fetishism which attaches itself to the products of labour as soon as they are produced as commodities, and which is therefore inseparable from the production of commodities.
And for a society based upon the production of commodities, in which the producers in general enter into social relations with one another by treating their products as commodities and values, whereby they reduce their individual private labour to the standard of homogeneous human labour
the process of production has the mastery over man, instead of being controlled by him, such formulae appear to the bourgeois intellect to be as much a self-evident necessity imposed by nature as productive labour itself.
To what extent some economists are misled by the fetishism inherent in commodities, or by the objective appearance of the social characteristics of labour, is shown, amongst other ways, by the dull and tedious quarrel over the part played by nature in the formation of exchange value. Since exchange value is a definite social manner of expressing the amount of labour bestowed upon an object, nature has no more to do with it, than it has in fixing the course of exchange.
Could commodities themselves speak, they would say: Our use value may be a thing that interests men. It is no part of us as objects. What, however, does belong to us as objects, is our value. Our natural intercourse as commodities proves it. In the eyes of each other we are nothing but exchange values. Now listen how those commodities speak through the mouth of the economist.
“Riches (use value) are the attribute of man; value is the attribute of
commodities. A man or a community is rich; a pearl or a diamond is valuable...
A pearl or a diamond is valuable as a pearl or a diamond”.[1]
So far no chemist has ever discovered exchange value either in a pearl
or a diamond. The economic discoverers of this chemical element, and who lay
special claim to critical acumen, nevertheless find that the use value of
objects belongs to them independently of their material properties, while their
value, on the other hand, forms a part of them as objects
•
The resources for meeting this need are diverse: they include Cooley's (1902) distinction between the more biologically based emotions and the more socially based sentiment
What are the emotional products of successful verification of self-standards? Is it necessarily and generally correct to assume that self-verification produces positive affect
Stryker:
identities are a part of a larger sense of self
As individuals begin to seek new identities, change is likely to move in
the direction of those identities that reflect their values.
McCall & sImmons
A role identity is,
therefore, “the character and the role that an individual devises for himself
(herself as well) as an occupant of a particular social position.”5
Barnard
'One creates a new and different image or identity simply by changing what one wears.'
'Fashion generates... an experience of both image and reality.'
•
The resources for meeting this need are diverse: they include Cooley's (1902) distinction between the more biologically based emotions and the more socially based sentiment
What are the emotional products of successful verification of self-standards? Is it necessarily and generally correct to assume that self-verification produces positive affect
Stryker:
identities are a part of a larger sense of self
As individuals begin to seek new identities, change is likely to move in
the direction of those identities that reflect their values.
McCall & sImmons
A role identity is,
therefore, “the character and the role that an individual devises for himself
(herself as well) as an occupant of a particular social position.”5
Barnard
'One creates a new and different image or identity simply by changing what one wears.'
'Fashion generates... an experience of both image and reality.'
No comments:
Post a Comment