2014년 9월 29일 월요일

[발췌: N. Fyfe's] Images of the Street: Planning, Identity and Control in Public Space (2006)

출처: Nicholas Fyfe ed (2006). Images of the Street: Planning, Identity and Control in Public Space. Routledge.
자료: 구글도서

※ 발췌 (excerpts): p. 274.

( ... ... ) In this essay I am mainly concerned with various subversive forms of public expression more or less conforming to a list provided by Arlene Raven (1993: 1): 'street art, guerrilla theatre, video, page art, billboards, protest actions and demonstrations, oral histories, dances, environments, posters, murals, paintings and sculpture ... ' These kinds of actions can all be described by the term 'culture jamming'. Below I focus on billboard defacement and the subversive projections of Krzysztof Wodiczko

Billboard Banditry

In his pamphlet titled ^Culture Jamming^, Mark Dery (1993: 6) asks 'what shape does an engaged politics assume in an empire of signs?' His answer is a form of semiological guerrilla warfare (as envisioned by Umberto Eco (1967)) he calls Culture Jamming. Culture Jamming as a term originates from the words of a member of the band Negativeland who was describing billboard alterations: 'the skillfully reworked billboard ... directs the public viewer to a consideration of the original corporate strategy. The studio for the culture jammer is the world at large' (quoted in Dery, 1993: 6). In Culture Jamming the signs and significations of the mass media are hijacked and diverted to both draw attention to the original message and create new messages with radically different intent. Jammers, say Dery, are 'attempting to reclaim the public space ceded to the chimeras of Hollywood and Madison Avenue, to restore a sense of equilibrium to a society sickened by the vertiginous whirl of TV culture' (ibid.: 13).

Examples of Culture Jamming include the alteration billboard space, wittily changing one message to another. San Francisco and Oakland have been popular locations for this billboard banditry where "Tropical blend. The Savage Tan' becomes 'Typical Blend. Sex in Ads'. Artfux of New Jersey change a Coca-Cola Board to say 'Drink Coca-ColaㅡIt Makes You Fart'. In London feminist bandits alter an ad for tights showing a pair of legs in high heel emerging from an egg with the words 'Legs as soft and smooth as the day you were born' with the large black words 'Born Kicking'. An add for a Fiat car featuring a woman lying on top of a car saying, 'It's so practical darling' is altered with the addition of the words 'when I'm not lying on cars I'm a brain surgeon'. A Greenpeace ad features a woman dragging a fur coat with the words 'It takes up to 40 dumb animals to make a fur coat. But only one to wear it' Overnight the words 'Men kill animals, Men make the profits, and Men make sexist ads' appears. This billboard banditry is but one form of Guerrilla semiotics that attacks under the cover of night to reinscribe the spaces of the city with messages that do not originate from points of money, power and privilege.

Culture Jamming, Guerrilla Semiotics, Night Discourse, whatever the label, potentially achieves two simultaneous political objectives. First it draws attention to the way the urban environment has been semanticisedㅡgiven a language and meaning of power, authority and commerce which creates and reproduce expected ways of thinking and acting. Second it creates new and alternative meanings ㅡit asserts the ability to read and write differently. As one billboard graffitist has put it: ( ... ... )

2014년 9월 28일 일요일

[용례] donkeying around

△ donkeying around [in urban dic]: a person behaving like a donkey, making donkey noises or just a person that is generally being a senseless human: ex) Please stop donkeying around!!! 

CF. △ monkey around: to behave in a stupid or careless way (LDOCE) ; 

※ 발췌 (excerpts): 

While we're on the subject of My Beloved Luis, remember his open letter to us when he left? Pure class. Torres could learn a lot from him about how to show your former club's fans what their support meant. At the time, I was gutted when Torres couldn't be arsed to address us, considering that we sang and cheered for him even when he was donkeying around the pitch with a face like a dying duck He didn't have to say anything to alienate himself from the Chelsea fans, but a simple thanks would have done, just some form of acknowledgement.

Last night we did not end up working out because the roof was literally on fire. No one was hurt, but the roof deck area was severely damaged. We waited for like 20 minutes, and they were not letting anyone in. So we went over to the wine bar that is conveniently a block away. After a glass of wine, they still were not letting people inside. So we ordered second glasses.

We thought about getting up for the early CF class, but then the alarm went off again around midnight. We had just dressed and made our way outside when it turned off again.

Earlier, SSO had tried get met to go to the earlier class, but I was donkeying around with code and indications, and said we should just go to the later class. We would've missed the fire if we had. ( ... )

People make mistakes. It is inherent in our human nature to make mistakes. As a Denver new media agency we realize that the true accomplishment is how someone overcomes those mistakes. In recent history we have seen more businesses struggle with how they can overcome sometimes simple and sometimes serious mistakes. We will be looking at creative and effective ways to overcome any issues a company online may encounter while "Donkeying around."

In the social media community we have seen several instances when those in control of the social media accounts at their companies have been caught "donkeying around." The most memorable was when a Red Cross manager tweeted about his weekend activities from the Red Cross twitter account. How did the Red Cross recover from this incident? They made a campaign out of it! This week we will show a few different instances of "donkeying around" and some ways to handle the situation and turn it into something positive for the company.

Address It

First there are the incidents where you address the situation. This would be where a slip-up has happened either in a software auto-correct or posting from an incorrect online account where consumers have noticed the post. When addressing a situation a company admits that something has happened but it is not going to make a big deal out of the situation. They will acknowledge it once or twice and then move on. A company may have to apologize or simple laugh at their mistake and then keep going with their usual plans.

Embrace it

These type of incidents deal with a business which has a social media mess-up has already exploded and gone viral. This can be something which is negative or simple embarrassing (...). After the above-mentioned post, the Red Cross first addressed the tweet in question. During the situation and once the Red Cross had been addressed there were several businesses and decided to embrace the situation and actually work with these individuals and businesses to use the situatin to encourage donations.

Avoid It

Avoinding an incident is not something which is encouraged, however there are few times where this is plausible. This would happen more in an auto-correct or misspelling situation. When the poster realizes the moment it has been sent out, they can oftetimes then correct the post immediately without having to address the situation. However, the moment which someone else sees the post, the company should address the situation.

No one likes to acknowledge their mistakes. There are times, however, when acknowledging the mistakes can bring big things. Hopefully the next time you've been caught "donkeying around" you can take one of these steps to recover from the situation with class and style. ( ... ... )

New Left people, with exceptions, don't dig the drug sceneㅡoh, pot, that's all right now and then, but none of that zoom stuff. The Yippies felt in the beginning of Convention Week that many people in the New Left were the pigs of the revolution. New Left people are not noted for agreeing among themselves, but they are generally of middle-class origin, and there were a lot of working-class kids who called themselves Yippies in Lincoln Park. Yippies are impulsive, and New Left people try to plan everything, even though they have had the tenor of an existential ideology, making it up as you go along, with a cautious basis in class concepts. Yippies and hippies feel that New Left people are often stolid and a bit out of it. As with most groups who have fundamental disagreements and agreements, they tend to talk about the disagreements behind each other's backs and welcome each other with the agreements. On Monday afternoon, after the absured breakthrough of the night before and just before the dramatic seizure of the equestrian statue of Union General John A. Logan in Grant Park, there was a Mobe organized demonstration in Grant Park in front of the Hilton which had proceeded from Lincoln Park in protest over the arrest of Tom Hayden. The demonstrators were donkeying around and around as asphalt path in the familiar pattern, but a lot of Yippies were sitting on the grass inside the circle and outside of it, staring sullenly at the Hilton. An SDS leader bellowed over the portable speaker, "If you are sitting on the grass, you liable to a bust. Join the march!" The Yippies stayed right where they were sitting on the grass and stared at the Hilton, unmoved by any New Left exhortations, ready for something else, ready to seize and ride the Logan statue. 

There were other student war-resisters outside the donkeying march talking with a small group of sailors and Air Force men, all in uniform, about the War in Vietnam and about war-resistance. One sailor, with rangy, ruddy face and blond hair, frankly admitted that he had joined the Navy to avoid getting killed in the ground-fighting in Vietnam. He was not affected by the brotherly, almost slavish intensity of the young, bushy-haired student's gentle, excited arguments. ( ... ) 

2014년 9월 27일 토요일

[발췌: A.B. Cox's] Making Markets and Constructing Crises: A Review of Ho's 'Liquidated'

출처: Alexandra B. Cox (2012). The Qualitative Report  2012 Volume 17, Review 6, 1-4

※ 발췌 (excerpts): 

( ... )

In her dissertation-turned-book, ^Liquidated: An Enthnography of Wall Street^ (2009), anthropologist Karen Ho describes the culture of Wall Street from an insider's perspective. Aster being recruited from Princeton and employed at the prestigious global investment fir Banker's Trust(BT), Ho developed a unique sense of what being a part of Wall Street meant. ( ... ) Through in-depth interviews with all levels of Wall Street employees, from entry-level analysts to senior managing directors and from front-office players to back-office support staff, Ho explores the omnipresent practice of downsizing and constant corporate liquidation experienced─and perpetuated─by these individuals and their Wall Street colleagues. She launched her personal experience into a full ethnographic research study in attempt to answer the question, " How do Wall Street investment bankers actively ^make markets^─that is, produce the dominant sensibilities of the stock market and Wall Street financial norms through their daily cultural practices?" (Ho, 2009, p. 4). In seven robust chapters and over one hundred detailed and transcribed interviews, Ho interrogates the culture of Wall Street and debunks the market as an elusive concept. Her rigorous qualitative research methods and sheer volume of data convincingly demonstrate a market that mimics the personalities, egos, and practices of the Wall Street investment bankers themselves, and her analysis makes the case for how these individuals have created a financial environment that shapes the way corporate America operates, the way the global economy functions, and even the way individuals live.

Ho (2009) introduces her text by justifying her choice to study Wall Street ethnographically and sets the stage for her data presentation and analysis throughout the book. Rejecting the “widespread conception of capitalist globalization as an abstract metanarrative and homogenizing force too unwieldy for ethnographic translation” (Ho, 2009, p. 5), she examines the values and practices of investment banks that have influenced the restructuring of U.S. corporations and have thus led to financial market booms and busts. She seeks to capture data that describes, demonstrates, and explains “what kinds of experiences and ideologies shaped investment banker actions, how they were empowered to make these shifts [from stable to unstable capitalism], and how these changes were enacted and understood to be righteous” (Ho, 2009, p. 5) through field work at iconic Wall Street investment banking firms such as Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch. ( ... ) In her words, she “designed a methodology that combined immersion with movement, broad enough to access Wall Street worldviews and practices, yet particular enough to understand how such norms were constituted on a daily basis within particular institutions” (Ho, 2009, pp. 18-19). Therefore, Ho is able to acclimate to and thoroughly understand the environment in her study, as well as represent the experiences of her many informants as she explores the culture of Wall Street.

( ... ... )

Central to Wall Street’s construction of its own superiority is the corollary assumption that the other corporations and industries are “less than” – less smart, less efficient, less competitive, less global, less hardworking – and thus less likely to survive the demands of global capitalism unless they restructure their cultural values and practices according to the standards of Wall Street (Ho, 2009, p. 57). Thus, Wall Street’s influence on corporate America and other global firms begins with the new hires they recruit from the nation’s top institutions; according to the firms, by hiring the smartest, most ambitious young people in the country, the manners in which they operate professionally must be the best.

( ... ) Through her interviews and observations, she uncovers seemingly contradictory events between the moral blueprint of shareholder value espoused by investment bankers and their enactment of bad deals, poor strategies, and long term financial busts. ( ... ) Because of their constant job insecurity and the culture of downsizing created by Wall Street firms, Ho proposes that instead of a model of shareholder value, what is really produced and perpetuated by the market is a sense of “the ultimate ‘liquid’ employee” (Ho, 2009, p. 252). She explains, “Wall Street approaches to compensation not only solidify job insecurity but also engender a relentless deal-making frenzy with no future orientation, which in turn sets in motion…[the] imposition of investment banking models of employee liquidity onto corporate America” (Ho, 2009, p. 252). ( ... ) She convincingly demonstrates throughout the text that the ideologies of the investment bankers manifest themselves in Wall Street structures and practices, ultimately leveraging their superiority to become dominant in the global market. These structures and practices – “broken promises, failed shareholder value, and the mining of capital without replenishing it” (Ho, 2009, p. 324) – ultimately led to the most recent economic crisis.

( ... ... )

2014년 9월 25일 목요일

Dic: as it (so) happens, It just so happens that..

  • She called Amy to see if she had any idea of her son's whereabouts. As it happened, Amy had. 
  • It just so happens that my daughter lives in Mexico, and I do know a bit about the situation there.
  • As it happens, I know someone who might be able to help you.
* * *

△ You use as it happens in order to introduce a statement, especially one that is rather surprising.

it just so happens (that): surprisingly.
    Usage notes: said about an unexpected or unlikely fact

△ as it happens/it just so happens: used to tell someone something that is surprising, interesting, or useful

[기사 발췌] 골드만삭스가 펀드 전략 180도 바꾼 이유는? (월스트리트 저널, 2014.8)

자료: 월스트리트 저널 (2014.8.6)

※ 발췌:

골드만삭스가 새로운 은행업 규정에 발맞추기 위해 수익 기여도가 낮은 고객을 정리하고, 고객 수수료를 인상하는 등 헤지펀드 사업 방식을 완전히 뒤바꾸고 있다.

골드만삭스는 헤지펀드 고객들을 대상으로 새로운 규정에 따른 최소 자본비율을 준수해야 한다면서, 그로 인해 전담중개업(prime-brokerage) 수익이 영향을 받게 됐다고 설명해 왔다. (헤지펀드 전담중개는 증권대여, 위탁매매, 장외파생상품매매, 신용공여 등을 제공해 헤지펀드의 운용 전략 수행을 지원하는 서비스다).

다수의 글로벌 대형은행에서 전개되고 있는 이같은 변화는 월가가 변모하는 환경에 적응하기 위해 또 다른 노력을 기울이고 있다는 점을 잘 드러낸다. 은행업계는 이미 자기자본매매(proprietary-trading) 사업 부문을 축소하고, 원자재 사업을 매각하고 있다. 또 증권 보유분을 줄이고, 헤지펀드 및 사모펀드에 대한 투자도 감축하고 있는 추세다. ( ... ... )

[발췌: 권오상, 파생금융 사용설명서] 투자은행과 헤지펀드의 애증적 관계: 프라임 브로커리지

출처: 권오상 지음, 《파생금융 사용설명서》, 부키 2013.
자료: 구글도서

※ 발췌: 소절 "투자은행과 헤지펀드의 애증적 관계: 프라임 브로커리지"

헤지펀드의 작동을 위해 레버리지의 채용이 필요함은 아무리 강조해도 지나치지 않다. 그런데 막상 자기 자본금의 수십 배에 달하는 레버리지를 일으키고 싶다고 마음먹은 대로 되는 것은 아니다. 레버리지는 오직 레버리지를 허용해 주는 곳이 있을 때만 가능하다. 단적인 예로, 우리가 갖고 있는 돈을 이용해 주식을 사는 것은 주식 투자이지만, 돈을 빌려 주식을 사는 것은 주식 투기로 보는 것이 타당하다. 그런데 그 경우, 주식 살 돈을 빌려 주는 곳, 이를테면 은행의 대출이나 브로커 증권사의 신용 매수 등이 허용되지 않으면 레버리지를 일으키고 싶어도 일으킬 방법이 없는 것이다.

이익을 창출할 수 있는 거래 아이디어는 있지만 그 자본금이 넉넉하지 않은 헤지펀드에 여러 서비스를 제공해 주고 가장 결정적으로는 레버리지를 걸어 주는 것이 바로 투자은행이 제공하는 프라임 브로커리지prime brokerage이다. 1980~1990년대 헤지펀드의 성장과 더불어 확장된 이 영역은 투자은행에서 일하는 사람 입장에서는 별로 "섹시하지 않은" 분야로 인식되지만, 투자은행의 주주와 경영진에게는 황금 알을 낳는 거위와도 같은 비즈니스다. 우선 헤지펀드는 설립하고자 하는 사람들에게 사무실, IT 시스템, 법률 자문, 회계 등과 같은 서비스를 일괄 제공해 쉽게 사업을 시작할 수 있게 해 준다. 그렇게 설립된 헤지펀드가 시장에 나가 거래하는 것에 관계된 모슨 서비스도 제공하며, 필요하다면 그 거래에 레버리지가 공급될 수 있도록 하는 역할까지 담당한다. 투자은행 입장에서는 이 프라임 브로커리지가 리스크는 거의 존재하지 않고 수익은 안정적으로 발생하는 분야다. 헤지펀드가 거래하면 할수록 투자은행의 수수료 수입은 계속적으로 증가하고, 설령 헤지펀드가 손실을 크게 입어 투자은행이 빌려준 자금이 위태로워진다고 해도 프라임 브로커로서의 지위를 이용해 헤지펀드의 포지션을 청산시킴으로써 빌려준 자금을 안전하게 되찾을 수 있기 때문이다.

어떤 면에서는 이 프라임 브로커리지 비즈니스가 투자은행 입장에서 일종의 거래소나 라스베이거스 도박장의 비즈니스 모델을 채용한 것으로도 볼 수 있다. 놀 수 있는 판을 마련해 주고 필요하다면 돈도 빌려 준 뒤 거기서 안정적인 수수료 수입을 거두는 것이 비즈니스의 핵심이기 때문이다. 도박에 관련된 오래된 격언 중에 "도박에서 유일하게 돈을 딸 수 있는 쪽은 하우스 [주]* 뿐"이라는 것이 있다. 우리나라에서는 아직 이슈가 되지 않았지만 미국에서는 최근 커다란 사회적 이슈로 제기되고 있는 다크 풀dark pool의 성장과 고빈도 거래high-frequency trading(HFT) [주]**의 예상치 못한 시장 지배력 또한 이러한 논리의 연장선상에 있다. 

투자은행이 프라임 브로커리지를 제공함으로써 얻는 이득이 또 하나 있다. 그 헤지펀드가 구사하는 거래 전략이 무엇인지 소상히 들여다볼 수 있다는 점이다. 순진하게 새로운 거래 전략을 금융 회사에 가서 얘기했다가 아무 소득도 거두지 못하고 아이디어만 뺏기고 마는 개인의 사례는 늘 있었다. 어떤 거래 전략이 유효하려면 그 전략을 구사하는 사람이 소수에 그쳐야 ( ... ... )

2014년 9월 24일 수요일

[Simple explanations of] the basic concept of options contracts

※ 발췌 (excerpts): 
Options contract

An options contract is nothing but the right to buy or sell something at a specified price within a period of time. The features of the options contract for a buyer is that, [:] 
  • the buyer has the right to buy, but he may choose to buy or may even choose to cancel the contract. Hence the buyers maximum loss in only the initial amount that was paid to gain the rights. 
  • Unlike buyers, the options contracts for sellers is an obligation. If a seller enters into an agreement, he has to deliver the asset on the specified date and the price agreed upon. The the loss for a seller could be much worse.

The right to buy is called a "CALL" option while the right to sell is called a "PUT" option. Please note that [:] 
  • an option is only a right to do something. It is not an obligation to carry out the action. For a buyer it is only a right and not an obligation, but for a seller it is an obligation.
For example, you want to buy Gold. You form an options contract with a Gold merchant to buy 1000 grams of Gold at the rate of[,] say[,] Rs. 1000 per gram of gold on December 1st 2008. The total value of the contract would sum up to Rs. 1,000,000. As part of getting into the contract you make an initial payment of[,] say[,] 2% of the contract value to the merchant. You make a payment of Rs. 20,000 and the contract gets formed. Now you are the buyer and the merchant is the seller.

Now there could [be] two possible scenarios: 

1. Assuming on 1st December the price of gold is Rs. 1050 per gram, then to buy thousand grams of gold you would need Rs. 1,050,000 which is Rs. 50,000 more than your options contract. Hence if you exercise your right to buy, you stand to make a profit of Rs. 50,000. At the same time, the seller has an obligation since he has agreed on the contract and he has to sell the gold to you at a loss of Rs. 50,000 when compared to the market rate.

2. Assuming on 1st December the price of gold is Rs. 950 per gram, the to buy thousand grams of gold you would need Rs. 950,000 which is Rs. 50,000 less than your options contract. Hence if you exercise your right to buy, you stand to lose Rs. 50,000. You can buy the same quantity of gold in the market at a lesser price. Hence you can choose to let your contract expire and limit you losses to only Rs. 20,000. The seller on the other hand does not make any transaction but still stands to keep the Rs. 20,000 you paid him to form the contract.

This 1000 rupees per gram that you agreed upon with the merchant is called the "Strike" Price. The initial deposit of Rs. 20,000 you paid him is called the "Options premium".

Participants in an Options market:

1. Buyers of Calls
2. Sellers of Calls
3. Buyers of Puts
4. Sellers of Puts

People who buy options are called "Holders" and those who sell options are called "Writers".
  • Call Holders and Put Holders (The Buyers) are not obligated to buy or sell. They have the right to do so if they wish. 
  • Similarly Call Writers and Put Writers (The Sellers) are obligated to buy or sell. This means that they need to buy or sell if the Call holders deciders to exercise his right to buy.

자료 2: https://www.tradeking.com/education/options/basics-of-options

For each call contract you buy, you have the right (but not the obligation) to purchase 100 shares of a specific security at a specific price within a specific time frame. A good way to remember this is: You have the right to “call” stock away from somebody.

For each put contract you buy, you have the right (but not the obligation) to sell 100 shares of a specific security at a specific price within a specific time frame. A good way to remember this is: You have the right to “put” stock to somebody.

자료 3: http://www.answers.com/Q/Difference_between_put_option_and_call_option

The holder/purchaser/owner of a call option contract has the right to buy an asset (or call the asset away) from a writer/seller of a call option contract at the pre-determined contract or strike price. 
  • The holder/purchaser/owner of a call option contract expects the price of the underlying asset to rise during the term or duration of the call contract, for as the value of the underlying asset increases so does the value of the call option contract. 
  • Conversely, the write/seller of a call option contract expects the price of the underlying asset to remain stable or to decline. 
The holder/purchaser/owner of a put option contract has the right to sell an asset (or put the asset) to a writer/seller of a put option contract at the pre-determined contract or strike price.
  • The holder/purchaser/owner of a put option contract expects the price of the underlying asset to decline during the term or duration of the put contract, for as the value of the underlying asset declines the contract value increases. 
  • Conversely, the writer/seller of a put option contract expects the price of the underlying asset to remain stable or to rise.

CF. Chapter 3. Mechanics of the Options Markets (Montana.edu)


2014년 9월 17일 수요일

[발췌: P. Linebaugh's] Enclosures from the Bottom Up (2010)

출처: Peter Linebaugh (2010). "Enclosures from the Bottom Up."  Radical History Review. 2010, Volume 2010, Number 108: 11-27

※ 발췌 (excerpts):


This essay integrates two themes: the enclosure of land, or of other resources, as a physical mechanism of privatization; and the technique of historical investigation known as writing history “from the bottom up.” Building on the work of Elinor Ostrom, the 2009 Nobel laureate in economics for her work on the commons, the essay criticizes the powerful and influential 1968 article “The Tragedy of the Commons” by the biologist Garrett Hardin. It demonstrates how Hardin's central argument is derived from the ideas of a nineteenth-century Oxford professor responding to a protracted series of militant actions by a small community in Oxfordshire that sought to defend its commons from enclosure. The acts of resistance exerted by these Oxfordshire commoners were among the first events uncovered and written about by members of the Ruskin College History Workshop who pioneered history “from below” in England during the early 1970s.

[발췌: We Alone on Earth's] Cultural Enclosure (2010)

자료: http://wealoneonearth.blogspot.kr/2010/09/cultural-enclosure.html

※ 발췌 (excerpts):

In the late 18th century, English society underwent a major structural change: the enclosure of the commons. The enclosure movement effectively destroyed ancient patterns of rural life, as wealthy land-owners used legal clout to turn peasant farmers into landless laborers. Something similar is happening here and now; an attempt by powerful media companies to enclose our common cultural heritage inside a fence of copyright law.

Copyright is one of the few specific powers enumerated in the American constitution. “The Congress shall have the power To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” Copyright was initially established at 14 years, with a 14 year renewal, but the term has been lengthened repeatedly, with the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act bringing the duration to life of the author plus seventy years, or 120 years for corporate authors. At the same time, the scope of copyright has expanded from maps and direct copies of literary works to all forms of media, adaptations, and translations.

The stated rational is that extending copyright benefits creators, and while it does, this grand cultural enclosure has inflicted grievous harm on our cultural vitality. ( ... ... )

[발췌: P. Barnes's] A Brief History of How We Lost the Commons (2006 [2013])

출처: Peter Barnes (2006). Capitalism 3.0: A Guide to Reclaiming the Commons. Berrett-Koehler Publishers
자료: Peter Barnes (2013). "A Brief History of How We Lost the Commons, and What We Must Do to Get it Back", Gernica. March 11, 2013. By arrangement with On the Commons.

※ 발췌 (excerpts): 

In the beginning, the commons was everywhere. Humans roamed through it, hunting and gathering to meet their needs. Like other species, we had territories but these were communal to the tribe, not private to the person.

Agriculture arouse about ten thousand years ago and along with it came permanent settlements and private property. Rulers grandted ownership of land to loyal familie. Often, military leaders distributed conquered land to their soldiers.

Despite the growth of private property, much land remained part of the commons. In Roman times, bodies of water, shorelines, wildlife, and air were explicitly classified as ^res communes^, resources available to all. During the Middle Ages, kings and feudal lords often claimed title to rivers, forests, and wild animals, often to have such claims periodically rebuked. The Magna Carta, which King John of England was forced to sign in 1215, established forests and fisheries as ^res communes^.

In the 17th century, English philosopher John Locke sought to find a balance between the commons and private property. He believed that God gave the earth to "mankind in common," but that some private property is justified because it spurs humans to work. The trick is to get the right balance. People should be able to acquire private property, but only up to a limit. That limit is set by two considerations: first, it should be no more than they can make productive through their labor, and second, it has to leave "enough and as good in common" for others. This was consistent with English common law at the time, which held, for example, that landowners could draw water from a stream or river for their own use, but couldn't diminish the supply available to others.

Despite Locke's quest for balance, the great majority of the English commons was later enclosed,  which is to say privatized. Local gentry, backed by Parliament, fenced off village lands and converted them to private holdings. Impoverished peasants then drifted to cities and became industrial workers.

One observer of this transformation was Thomas Paine, the pamphleteer who spoke so eloquently for American independence. Seeing how enclosure of the commons benefited a few and disinheritied many others, Paine proposed a remedyㅡnot a reversal of enclosure, which he considered necessary for economic progress, but compensation for its loss.

Like Locke, Paine believed nature was a gift of God to all. "There are two kinds of property," he wrote. "Firstly, natural property, or that which comes to us from the Creator of the universeㅡsuch as the earth, air, water. Secondly, artificial or acquired propertyㅡthe invention of men." In the latter, he reasoned, equality is impossible, but in the former, "all individuals have legitimate birthrights." Since these birthrights were being diminished by enclosure, there ought to be a compensation for that loss. Paine proposed a "national fund" that would do two things:

[Pay] to every person, when arrived at the age of 21 years, the sum of 15 pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property: And also, the sum of 10 pounds per annum, during life, to every person now living, of the age of 50 years, and to all others as they shall arrive at that age.

A century and a half later, the U.S. created a national fund to do part of what Paine recommendedㅡwe call it Social Security. We've yet to adopt the other part, but its basic principleㅡthat enclosure of a commons requires compensationㅡis as sound in our time as it was in Paine's.

The Fate of the Commons in America

In the years since European settlement, America developed its own relationship with the commons, which in our case included the vast lands we took from native people and Mexico. Some Americans, exemplified by Thomas Jefferson, saw our commons as the soil from which we could build a nation of prosperous small farmers and proprietors. This philosophy led to passage of laws such as the Land Ordinance of 1785, the Homestead Act, the Morrill Land Grant College Act, and the Reclamation Act, which allocated family size plots to settlers and financed schools to educate them. Many Americans, exemplified by Teddy Roosevelt, also cherished these lands for their wildness and beauty, which led to the establishment of national parks, wildlife preserves and wilderness areas.

At the same time, others in America viewed our common wealth as the means to their personal fortune, and lobbied or bribed government officials to give away priceless lands to railroads, mining and timber interests, and speculators.

If an accounting could be made of all the private appropriation of commons through the yearsㅡnot just land but other valuable resourcesㅡit would total trillions of dollar. The plot is almost always the same: when a certain commons acquire commercial value, someone tries to grab it. In the old days, that meant politically connected individuals; nowadays, it means politically powerful corporations.

In 1995, for example, Congress decided it was time for Americans to shift from analog to digital television. This required a new set of broadcast frequencies, and Congress obligingly gave them—free of charge—to the same media companies to which it had previously given analog frequencies free of charge, despite the fact that the airwaves belong to all of us. Republican Senate leader Bob Dole opposed the giveaway. “It makes no sense,” he said, “that Congress would create a giant corporate welfare program…. The bottom line is that the [broadcasting] spectrum is just as much a national resource as our national forests. That means it belongs to every American equally.” But, just as before, the media companies got their free airwaves anyway.

What's astonishing about these takings isn't that they occur, but how unaware of them the average citizen is. As another Republican, former Secretary of the Interior and Alaska governor Walter Hickel said, "If you steal $10 from a man's wallet, you're likely to get into a fight, but if you steal billions from the commons, co-owned by him and his descendants, he may not even notice."

Enclosure, in which property rights are literally taken or given away by government, is half the reason our commons is in such a steep decline today; the other half is a form of trepass called externalizingㅡthat is, corporations shifting their costs onto the commons. Externalizing is as damaging as enclosure, yet much less noticed, since it occurs quietly adn continuously, as in the case of pollution seeping into a river.

The one-tw punch of enclosure and externalizing is especially destructive. With one hand, corporations take valuable stuff from the commons and privatize it. With the other hand, they dump bad stuff into the commons and pay nothing. The result is profits for corporations but a steady loss for everyone else, to whom the commons belong.

Capitalism Enters the Fray

Humans began ravaging nature long before capitalism was a gleam in Adam Smith's eye. Modern capitalism, however, has exponentially enlarged the scale of that ravaging.

A century ago, land, resources, and places to dump wastes were abundant; capital itself was the limiting factor. That's why rules and practices were developed that prioritized capital above all else.

In the 21st century, however, this is no longer the case. As economist Joshua Farley has noted, "If we want more fish on our dinner plates, the scarce factor isn't fishing boats, it's fish. If we want more timber, the scarce factor isn't sawmills, it's trees."

( ... ... )

[D. Boillier's] The History of Commons and Enclosure

자료: http://bollier.org/week-4-history-commons-and-enclosure

※ 발췌 (excerpts): A review of medieval commons, Peter Linebaugh's history of Magna Carta, and Karl Polanyi's The Great Transformation.

CF. A list of commoners: http://bollier.org/commons-resources/individuals

2014년 9월 13일 토요일

[발췌: 신승환] 생명 윤리를 위한 길

지은이: 신승환 (가톨릭대학교 철학과 교수)
자료: 학교법인 가톨릭학원, <평화와 함께> 2013년 11월 제77호.

※ 발췌:

( ... ... ) 두 번째로 생각해야 할 것은 생명윤리란 생명에 대한 우리의 관계를 떠나 이루어지지 않는다는 점이다. 생명윤리는 생명에 대한 인간의 관계 맺음을 의미한다. 윤리(ethics)란 말의 어원(ethos)은 “습성화된 행동”이나 또는 그에 따른 관습에서 비롯되었으며,나아가 그 대상과 맺는 관계 맺음이란 의미를 포함한다. 즉 어떤 대상에 대한 인간의 습성화된 행동은 물론, 그 대상과 맺는 타당한 관계가 윤리의 내용을 구성하는 요소가 된다는 말이다.

예를 들어 동물 윤리는 동물 일반에 대해 우리가 갖는 습성화된 행동과 관습적 태도는 물론, 동물과 우리가 맺는 관계 일반을 포함한다. 유가 철학의 삼강오륜을 생각해 보라. 오륜(五倫)은 명확히 아버지와 아들, 부부와 친구, 스승과 제자의 관계 덕목을 말하고 있지 않은가. 생명 윤리 역시 그러하다. 생명에 대해 우리가 갖는 관습적 태도와 함께 생명 일반에 대한 우리의 관계 맺음이 생명 윤리를 구성하는 내용이 되는 것이다. ( ... ... )

2014년 9월 11일 목요일

[용어] gonzo journalism

Gonzo journalism is a style of journalism that is written without claims of objectivity, often including the reporter as part of the story via a first-person narrative. The word "gonzo" is believed to be first used in 1970 to describe an article by Hunter S. Thompson, who later popularized the style. It is an energetic first-person participatory writing style in which the author is a protagonist, and it draws its power from a combination of both social critique and self-satire.[1] It has since been applied to other subjective artistic endeavors.
Gonzo journalism involves an approach to accuracy through the reporting of personal experiences and emotions, as compared to traditional journalism, which favors a detached style and relies on facts or quotations that can be verified by third parties. Gonzo journalism disregards the strictly edited product favored by newspaper media and strives for a more personal approach; the personality of a piece is equally as important as the event the piece is on. Use of sarcasm,humor, exaggeration, and profanity is common. ( ... ... )

( ... ... ) Cardoso, himself a journalist, claims that "gonzo" is actually a corruption of a French Canadian word, "gonzeaux", meaning "shining path". While to my knowledge no such word exists, modern slang dictionaries speculate it is Spanish, perhaps after gonzagas, meaning "to fool". However, gonzo has made it into the 20+ volume set of the Oxford English Dictionary.
In gonzo journalism, there are no set rules, though like most writers, Thompson follows a successful style and framework, revolving loosely around the Kentucky piece. Thompson's own definition of it has varied over the years, but he still maintains that a good gonzo journalist "needs the talent of master journalist, the eye of an artist/photographer and the heavy balls of an actor" and that gonzo is a "style of reporting based on William Faulkner's idea that the best fiction is far more true than any kind of journalism" (Carroll, pxx).
This would be a good place to stop and talk about new journalism. Gonzo journalism is an offshoot of NJ. Hell's Angels is probably the only book of Thompson's that could be called NJ. NJ was a journalistic movement during the late fifties to the late seventies (whether it has all but disappeared I do not know). Writers, realizing that objectivity in news reporting is more or less a myth, tried to write about things as they saw them. The things they saw tended to be counterculture activities, such as peace demonstrations, drugs, flower children and music. These subjects were either ignored or misrepresented by the traditional mainstream press. The popularity of NJ was that it was a style that "put the pseudo- objective soporifics of the broadsheets to shame by applying to journalism the techniques of the realistic novel", however, "it required a romance with reality that undermined the ideologues' lust for self-deceit" (Vigilante, 1988, p12). When done right, new journalism is usually more true. Rock journalism is also a cousin of NJ - here is where the impact of magazines such as Rolling Stone are felt. Gonzo neatly falls into place alongside the participatory journalism of writers such as George Plimpton with his sporting books like Paper Lion and Shadow Box.
( ... ) There are seven main characteristics that appear in his writing. They are:
- overlapping themes of sex, violence, drugs, sports and politics.
- use of quotes by famous people and other writers or sometimes his own as an epigraph
- references to public figures such as newspeople, actors, musicians and politicians
- a tendency to move away from the topic subject or subject he started out with
- use of sarcasm and/or vulgarity as humour
- tendency for the words to flow and an extremely creative use of English
- extreme scrutiny of situations
As discussed in the previous essay, Thompson tends to write about things he is personally involved in. He knows his own hobbies well and it seems to be what his readers want. Subjects like drugs, sex, violence and sports also seem to be the obsession of North America, so therefore Thompson is literally writing not only about himself but a large part of the population. ( ... ... )

( ... ) In an article appearing in the journal American Speech in 1983, Peter Tamony claims that Gonzo’s “earlier history is obscure.”[n.1] While this remains true, a few sources suggest the word’s origins. For example, Tamony speculates that “Gonzo looks Spanish” and asks whether the word might be an Americanization of ganso, meaning “‘gander, lazy slovenly person, [or] dunce.’”[n.2] The Oxford English Dictionary suggests another possible source, the Italian gonzo, meaning foolish. The OED defines the adjective form of “gonzo” as “designating a style of subjective journalism characterized by factual distortion and exaggerated rhetoric . . . bizarre, crazy” and the noun form as “a person who writes in this style.”[n.3] The word has been used, in the United States at least, to sell everything from pizza to Muppets to motorcycles (Pollak 1975),[n.4] and it is commonly understood by people who have never heard of Hunter S. Thompson to mean “crazy, off the wall, out of control.”
( ... ) However, in an article tracing the word’s etymology, Martin Hirst discounts Cardoso’s guess,[n.6] and in any case, “shining path” doesn’t seem to describe Thompson’s writing, which more often assumes the form of a “savage journey,” as the subtitle of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas suggests. Another Thompson biographer, Peter O. Whitmer, claims that Gonzo was a term that the “South Boston Irish used to describe the guts and stamina of the last man standing at the end of a marathon drinking bout.”[n.7] Given the subject of Thompson’s “The Kentucky Derby Is Decadent and Depraved,” this definition seems to correlate most closely to Cardoso’s reaction. Thompson himself has explained that he understood “gonzo” to be “some Boston word for weird, bizarre.”8 William McKeen explains that another possible origin for the word is a New Orleans instrumental tune with which Thompson was familiar.9 “From the first,” Tamony notes, the word “seems to have denoted ‘brash, importunate, flamboyant,’” a fair description of Thompson’s journalism.[n.10] Tamony correctly asserts that the “earliest use [of “Gonzo”] linked the word with drugs and journalism,”[n.11] but the journalistic method of reporting, writing, and editing that Gonzo specifically describes does not necessarily require that the writer be, as Thompson notoriously often was, under the influence of mind-altering substances.
In a letter to Jim Silberman of Random House, Thompson confessed that he had mostly fabricated the depiction of drug use in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.[n.12] Tamony hedges the drug issue when he says that the term has come to denote a style of journalism rather than just Thompson’s specific work,[n.13] which raises the obvious question: can similar techniques employed by other journalists appropriately be categorized as “Gonzo”? Examining the term in its fullest context, I would suggest that there’s only one true Gonzo journalist, and that’s Hunter S. Thompson.
In an article published in the short-lived Scanlan’s Monthly in 1970, Thompson presented his first experiment with a new style of journalism, “The Kentucky Derby Is Decadent and Depraved.” The Derby story introduces several elements that would become characteristic of Thompson's Gonzo journalism:
(1) the presence of a first-person, autobiographical narrator who assumes the role of protagonist;
(2) the participation of a male bonding figure, in this case illustrator Ralph Steadman, who, like Oscar Zeta Acosta would later do in Las Vagas, plays the role of Thompson's comic foil;
(3) the change of focus from the ostensible subject, the Derby itself, to Thompson's failed return to his hometown, Louisville, Kentucky, to face his personal demons;
(4) and, finally, Thompson's agonized struggle to produce a finished article by deadline. After a frenzied bout of hard drinking and a prolonged dark night of the soul among Louisville's Blueblood elite, Thompson confesses he had "blown my mind, couldn't work. ..." [n.14] McKeen explains that Thompson's narrative "was only ^fairly^ coherent because, under deadline pressure, Hunter broke from the narrative and started sending the editors scrawled pages ripped from his journal: half-formed thoughts, sketches, semi-lucid notes."[n.15]
In a "Techincal Guide to Editing Gonzo," Robert Love demonstrates Thompson's legendary practice of transmitting unedited copy via his Mojo Wire to hapless editors who scrambled to make sense of it all.[n.16] Upon the Derby story's publication, Cardoso, impressed with the results, wrote to Thompson, praising the piece as "pure Gonzo journalism," the first use of the word to describe a journalistic style.[n.17]
At least two figures in Thompson’s life claimed to have co-created gonzo journalism: Oscar Zeta Acosta, author, activist, and the prototype for the Samoan attorney in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, and artist Ralph Steadman, mentioned earlier. In a letter to Playboy Forum, Acosta insists that his direct participation in the infamous journey that inspired Thompson to write Vegas contributed to the creation of Thompson’s Gonzo style.[n.18] Steadman contends in his memoir of Thompson, The Joke’s Over, that his drawings were as much a part of the original Gonzo reading experience as Thompson’s prose.19 Of the two, Steadman, whose work will always be closely associated with Thompson’s, has the better claim, having illustrated the “Kentucky Derby” story, the first bona fide Gonzo text.
A number of critics and journalists have helped provide us with a comprehensive understanding of Gonzo journalism. McKeen writes that Gonzo “requires virtually no rewriting, with the reporter and the quest for information the focal point. Notes, sketches from other articles, transcribed interviews, verbatim telephone conversations, telegrams—these are the elements of a piece of Gonzo journalism.”20 Jesse Jarnow adds that “as a literary style, [Gonzo] had two main tenets: total subjectivity and a first-draft/best-draft approach that jibed perfectly with the post-Beatnik literary world of the late 1960s.”21 In his “jacket copy” for Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, Thompson has claimed that Gonzo is based partly on William Faulkner’s observation that the best fiction is truer than fact.22 Thompson’s best-known work of Gonzo journalism is Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas: A Savage Journey to the Heart of the American Dream, a crazed account of dune-buggy races, district attorneys, and massive substance abuse in Sin City in 1971. Thompson later confessed that he regarded Vegas as a failed experiment in Gonzo journalism because he had to revise his prose to create the effect of raw spontaneity,23 and yet, as multiple interviews testify, he defined Gonzo differently at different times. In a way, Thompson seemed stuck with a label that he didn’t create and that he could never completely define. 
Seen from one perspective, Gonzo reflects Thompson’s iconic, drug-slugging lifestyle, full of “fear and loathing” and “bad craziness.” Gonzo is also a mode of perception in the sense that the deliberate derangement of the senses through drugs and alcohol de-familiarizes reality, opening the door to paradoxically clearer perceptions, a twisted perspective evoked so perfectly by Steadman’s grotesquely expressionistic caricatures. Gonzo is also a narrative technique, a form of subjective, participatory literary journalism that places the narrator in the center of the narrative while it spontaneously records a dark reality, often fabricated. Gonzo also describes Thompson’s style, employing a verb-driven, “running” syntax, as well as digressions, metaphors, fragments, allusions, ellipses, abrupt transitions, and gaps, all of which model
the narrator’s feelings of desperation, degradation, and despair. As Thompson frequently maintained, Gonzo also represents a commitment he shared with George Orwell “to make political writing into an art,”24 an expression of his leftist-anarchist politics, best exemplified perhaps by Fear and Loathing: On the Campaign Trail ’72. Gonzo is even a kind of journalistic ethic, as Thompson told P. J. O’Rourke: “If I’m going to go into the fantastic, I have to have a firm grounding in the truth. Otherwise, everything I write about politics might be taken as a hallucination.”25 Finally, Gonzo was a way for Thompson to differentiate himself from other New Journalists of the same era—Wolfe, Mailer, Didion. As Thompson related to one interviewer, “I just thought if I’m going to be a journalist, I might as well be my own kind.”[n.26]

The traditional role of a journalist has often been that of an objective outsider who simply observes and reports a newsworthy event, not an active participant in or instigator of that event. A responsible journalist could still express personal thoughts and other subjective observations, but there needs to be a clear separation between the reporting journalist and the event itself. This journalistic philosophy does not hold true, however, in a radical form of news reporting known as gonzo journalism.
In gonzo journalism, a journalist is free to participate in events and circumstances which may themselves be considered newsworthy. A gonzo journalist can actively participate in a political candidate's campaign without making any effort to appear politically neutral or unbiased. Indeed, one of the hallmarks of gonzo journalism is an almost complete personal immersion into the world a gonzo journalist ultimately wishes to expose or record for posterity.
While a traditional journalist might interview drug dealers or drug addicts for an expose on the local drug trade, for example, a gonzo journalist may actually participate in the shady deals and backroom exploits of a drug kingpin or a local gang. The purpose of gonzo journalism would be to produce a brutally honest or highly subjective journalistic piece based on the real experience of a trained reporter writing from the inside. A gonzo journalist is not necessarily protected from law enforcement efforts, so even the legal ramifications of the journalist's actions could become part of the news story.
Perhaps the most famous gonzo journalist was the late Hunter S. Thompson, a self-styled renegade reporter who frequently wrote pieces for Rolling Stone magazine while living a no-holds-barred personal lifestyle. Ostensibly assigned to cover the 1972 presidential campaign, for example, Thompson instead chose to deviate from the campaign trail and report on his own drug and alcohol-fueled adventures. His book Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail has since become a classic example of gonzo journalism.
Critics of gonzo journalism consider the practice to be little more than sanctioned hedonism. Responsible journalists should not take it upon themselves to instigate news items or become completely immersed in the very culture or circumstances they have been assigned to observe. Gonzo journalists are a rare breed of writer, often possessing larger-than-life personalities and a "gonzo" or go-for-broke approach to the subject at hand.
While some reporters may choose to explore "participatory journalism" under the strict guidance and supervision of a superior, gonzo journalists often take it upon themselves to experience the event on a personal level first, then rework their observations into acceptable journalistic form later. While a magazine or newspaper may underwrite some of the gonzo journalist's expenses while on assignment, a true gonzo journalist is keenly aware that he or she is working without a net.

... ... 

2014년 9월 10일 수요일

[발췌] <모비딕>과 사귐의 세계관

출처: 블로그 "미국 문학과 문화 연구"  (2008.1.9.)

CF. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/article/College-Literature/128705118.html
(5) In Chapter 89, "Fast-Fish and Loose-Fish," Melville differentiates between whales that are the possession of those who are fast to them and whales that remain "fair game" for anyone who can catch them. Claiming that these two whaling principles demonstrate the "fundamentals of all human jurisprudence[,]" he uses them to critique social inequities and global imperialism, and ends the chapter by asking, "What [are] all men's minds and opinions but Loose-Fish?" and then interrogating the reader: "And what are you, reader, but a Loose-Fish and a Fast-Fish, too?" In doing so, he points to how we are all already possessed by certain ideologies and discursive formations and yet are still fair game to be captured by new ideologies and ways of seeing. In appropriating his analogy here, I am noting the two kinds of effect that reading a book like Moby-Dick can have: we can be held in thrall by Melville's powerful rhetorical arguments, but these very arguments can also act to free us from previously held beliefs and open us up to new ways of thinking, which, in turn, can similarly hold us fast.
CF. http://callmeishmael.org/2009/01/11/chapter-89-fast-fish-and-loose-fish/
CF. http://www.albertleatribune.com/2012/09/are-you-a-fast-fish-or-are-you-a-loose-fish/
CF. http://www.williamlanday.com/2011/01/10/fast-fish-and-loose-fish/

※ 발췌:

서구 자본주의 탄생의 원동력이 부르주아의 이익을 인본주의의 보편 이념으로 정당화시킴으로써 얻은 혁명적, 대중적 힘이었다는 사실을 굳이 거론하지 않더라도, 미국 독립의 실마리 역시 정치 권력과 세금 문제와 관련 이권을 침해당한 부르주아의 불만에서 발견됐음은 주지의 사실이다. '대표권 없는 과세'가 분노를 촉발했고, 권력의 전횡에 대한 인민의 저항권을 인정하는 헌법과 보편적 인간의 자유, 평등, 행복 추구권 등 천부인권을 정의하는, 제퍼슨의 기초로 발표된 독립선언서는 자기들 반란의 보편적 정당성을 확보할 만한 이념이었다. 세계 최초로 '만민 평등'이라는 국가의 설립 정신을 내세운 미국은 유럽 제국과 달리 노예 수입을 통해 '내부 식민지'를 조성, 유럽의 농산물 기지로서 국가 발전의 경제적 토대를 마련했다. 그런데 19세기로 접어들면서 유럽 산업혁명의 영향으로 국내 산업 자본이 성장하고 경제적 토대의 변화가 서서히 일어나기 시작했다. 북부의 급속한 산업화와 도시의 발전은 전통적으로 정계를 장악해오던 남부 농장주 출신 정치인들과 이해의 충돌을 일으키기 시작했다. "상충하는 경제적 이해는 잠재적이었지만, 그 논쟁에서 강력한 세력들로 대립" (Lincoln 42)했다. 1860년 통계에 따르면 은행 예금, 공장, 철도 등 직간접 자본의 약 80%가 북부에 쏠리게 됐고(데이비스 220-221), 낙후된 남부의 불만은 북부 양키와의 대립을 첨예하게 만들고 있었다. ( ... )

허먼 멜빌(Herman Melville)의 <모비딕(Moby Dick, or the Whale)>은 남북전쟁 10년 전인 1851년에 발표됐다. 미국사에서 1850년대는 아주 중요하게 평가되고 있는데, 저잋적 독립과 이어진 경제적 팽창에 더하여 문화적 독립과 자신감을 가지게 된 격동의 1850년대를 매씨슨(F.O. Matthiessen)은 '미국 르네상스'라 칭했다. 당대 미국적 이념을 구현한 주요 문화인으로 랠프 에머슨, 헨리 쏘로루 월트 휘트먼, 나사니엘 호손, 에드거 애런 포 등이 있다. 그러나 멜빌은 인기 없는 무명 작가에 지나지 않았다. 아메리카니즘의 신념이 팽배하던 시기에 그 오만과 편견을 신랄하게 풍자하는 상징적 작품들이 문학 대중들의 구미에 맞지 않았던 탓이었다. 1849년에 발표된 <레드번(Redburn0>, 1850년의 <화이트재킷(White Jacket)> 등 초기 몇 작품들은 미국의 우월성에 대한 멜빌의 믿음이 부분적으로 표현되어 상업적 성공을 거둔 것으로 알려져 있으나, 작가 스스로 '쓰레기', '댐뱃값 벌기 위해 쓴 것'이라 폄하했다(신문수 16)고 알려져 있다. 그러나 이들보다 먼저 발표했던 <타이피(Typee, 1846)>, <오무(Omoo, 1847)>, <마디(Mardi, 1849)> 등에서 백인들의 가치관을 비판적으로 성찰했다는 이유로 "기독교단의 압력에 수정판을 내야"(신문수 15)했다. 현실 논리와 타협을 거부한 작가가 <모비딕>을 분기점으로 ( ...).

멜빌은 <모비딕>을 탈고하면서 이웃에 살던 작가 호손에게 편지를 쓰는데, 출판사 편집자의 집요한 검열과 대중 취미에 동조할 수 없는 자기 고민을 털어놓는다. 그는 "대담하게 진실을 밝히려는" 욕구와 한편으로 그렇게 하는 것이 바보짓이라는 뼈아픈 각성 사이에서 심히 상충되는 감정을 드러낸다. 이를테면 "진실대로 살려고 하는 것과 주류 사회로 가고자 하는 것"의 내적 갈등인 셈이다. 일찍이 <타이피> 원고에서 마퀴스 제도를 '문명화시킨다'는 명목으로 백인 식민자들과 선교사들에 의해 저질러진 잔혹 행위들을 재현한 부분을 삭제하도록 호되게 편집 당한 바 있는 그는 편집자를 "문을 살짝 열어둔 채로 언제나 나에게 히죽대는 심술궂은 악마"라고 표현하고, 그에게 가져갈 원고를 설명하면서, "만약 당신이 나의 전면에 걸친 무자비한 민주주의(ruthless democracy) 이야기를 보고 읽는다면, 아마도 전율을 느낄지도 모르겠다"(Powell 5)는 의견을 폈다.

'무자비한 민주주의'라고 작가에 의해 묘사된 <모비딕>의 내용은 당대 미국인의 세계 탐험과 일확천금의 꿈을 바다와 포경선이라는 무대를 통해 종교, 운명, 경제적 야망 따위로 동시대를 지배하던 문화정치적 토대를 다면적으로 분석하고, 비극적 비전에 입각 인간적 야망의 무모성과 그 때문에 나타나는 집단적이고 폭력적인 경향을 비판적으로 조명한다. 나아가 멜빌은 유럽 백인종들로 하여금 중세라는 암흑시대의 장벽을 넘어 새로운 세계를 향한 꿈과 야망을 펼치도록 자극했던 현장, 즉 근대 국가 탄생과 성장의 텃밭인 바다라는 탈출과 해방의 길을 따라가면서 그 동력의 실체를 탐색한다.

이 글은 근대적 이상인 민주주의가 종교와 결합하여 어떻게 현대사회를 이끌어가는지에 대한 멜빌의 탐색을 살펴보고, 그리고 그렇다면 작가가 구상하는 대안적 구상은 무엇인지를 인식론적 관점에서 밝혀보고자 한다. 이를 위해 피쿼드 호(The Pequod)를 동시대 미국으로 가정하고, 그 지도자로서 에이헙(Ahab)과 그의 선상 생황의 운영 및 선원들과의 관계가 어떻게 작동하느지를 비판적으로 살펴볼 것이다. 그리고 대안적 관계로서 작중 화자 이스마엘(Ishmael)과 작살잡이 퀴컥(Queequeg)의 관계를 중심으로 인간과 인간, 그리고 인간과 세계의 인식과 관계 형성에 대한 멜빌의 시각을 '사귐의 세계관'이란 각도에서 조명할 것이다.

2. 교과서의 미국과 시장의 미국

이스마엘은 로마 절대권력 시저에 항거하여 칼 위에 자기 몸을 던졌던 정치인 케이토(Cato)와 같은 심정으로 조용히 배를 탄다. 마치 유럽인들이 어떠한 이유에서건 구대륙에 등을 돌리고 신대륙을 향해 배를 타듯이, 그는 육지의 삶에 환멸을 느끼고 새로운 세계를 향해 포경선 피쿼드 호에 몸을 싣는다. 왜 하필이면 포경선인가? 그는 "거대한 고래 그 자체에 대한 저항할 수 없는 관념"에 유혹되고 자기의 모든 호기심을 발분시키는 "무시무시하면서도 신비로운 괴물"(25)[n.1]에 이끌렸다고 동기를 밝힌다. 여기서 우리는 근대 서구인들의 모험 정신에 대한 낭만적 수용을 벗어날 필요가 있는데, 적어도 르네상스 시기부터 19세기까지 절대 다수의 인구가 절대 빈곤의 수준을 벗어나지 못하고 있었다는 사실을 감안해야 할 것이다. 그래서 이스마엘은 동시대의 집중적 관심의 대상인 "돈은 온갖 현세의 악의 뿌리라고 성심껏 믿고, 부자가 절대 천국에 들 수 없다는 신앙의 진리를 감안하면, 사람들의 돈을 벌려는 그 품위 있는 행위야말로 정말 경이로운 일"이라고 문제제기하면서, "아 우리는 얼마나 즐겁게 그 파멸에 자신들을 위탁하고 있는가!"(24)라고 비판한다.

피터 번스타인(Peter L. Bernstein)은 <황금의 지배(The Power of Gold: The History of Obsession)>에서 특히 모험 정신의 순수성으로 기독교인들에 의해 포장된 항해와 제국주의 침략과 약탈을 근대 서구인들의 황금에 대한 강박의 역사 속에서 구체적으로 조명한다. 그의 논리에 따르면, 영웅이 되겠자는 꿈과 이교도를 개종시키겠다는 그들의 열정은 르네상스 시대에만 나타난 일이 아니었고, 서구 역사에서 "언제나 기독교들은 영정적인 전도사"(번스타인 175)였다.

 ( ... ... )

( ... ) 멜빌이 <모비딕>을 쓰기 전인 1848년 아직 미국에 편입되지 않은 극서부 샌프랜시스코에서 금맥이 발견되어, 1849년 온 나라가 떠들썩하게 이른바 '금을 향한 질주(Gold Rush))의 대열을 만들어낸다.

이스마엘은 이런 시대 상황적 조건에서 열강 제국이 행하는 '게임의 규칙'을 형상화하기 위해 각국의 배들이 뛰어드는 포경 세계의 규칙을 설명하면서 잡은 고래(Fast-Fish)와 놓친 고래(Loose-Fish)의 예를 들어 설명한다. "1. 잡힌 고래는 붙잡고 있는 쪽의 소유이고, 2. 놓친 고래는 누구라도 그것을 먼저 붙잡는 쪽 소유인 것이 정당"(379)하다는 원칙이다. 그는 이런 세상의 논리를 구체적으로 설명하는데, 러시아와 미국 노예의 육체와 영혼, 죄가 드러나지 않은 악당의 대저택, 거간꾼에 저당잡힌 굶주리는 빈곤층, 성직자에게 돈을 바쳐야 하는 등뼈 부서진 노동자들이 바로 잡힌 고래라고 설명한다. 뿐만 아니라 "끔찍한 작살잡이 영국(John Bull)에게 불쌍한 아일랜드는 오로지 잡힌 고래가 아니고 무언가? 성스러운 창잡이 미국(Brother Jonathan)에게 텍사스는 잡힌 고래 아니면 뭔가?"라고 주장하고, 그렇다면 "소유라는 것이 곧 법의 전부"(381)라고 결론 내린다. 그러나 당시의 백인들에게 세상은 넓고 할 일은 더 많았다. 그래서 놓친 고래의 법령은 더 폭넓고 국제적이며 보편적으로 통한다.
1492년 콜럼버스가 자기 황제와 황후를 위한 표시로 스페인 국기를 꽂았을 때 아메리카는 놓친 고래가 아니고 무엇인가? 폴란드는 러시아 황제에게 무엇이고, 그리스는 터키 사람에게 무엇이며, 인도는 영국에게 무엇이겠는가? 합중국에게 멕시코가 무엇이 되겠는가. 모두 놓친 고래인 셈이다.
인간의 권리와 세계의 자유, 그것도 놓친 고래가 아니고 뭔가? 모든 인간의 마음과 사상은 놓친 고래다. 그들이 갖는 종교적 신념의 원리 또한 놓친 고래가 아니고 무엇인가? 으스대며 표절을 일삼는 달변가에게 철학자의 사상은 놓친 고래가 아니고 무엇이겠는가? 이 커다란 지구 자체가 놓친 고래라는 것쯤 누구나 알지 않는가? 그리고 독자 여러분 역시 놓친 고래인 동시에 잡힌 고래 아니고 무엇인가? (381)
식민지 '뉴잉글랜드'는 본성적으로 이런 모순의 그물망에 싸 안겨 탄생했다. 종교적, 정치적 자유를 찾아 이른바 '신대륙'을 강탈했던 백인들의 행태는 유럽 제국주의 이데올로기의 이식과 그의 실행에 다름 아니었다. 종교적, 정치적 자유라는 인본주의적 꿈과 일확천금의 욕망을 실현하고자 하는 제국주의 이념은 '아메리칸 드림'이라는 신화의 양면이었다. ( ... ) 이와 같은 근대 민주주의 국가 체제의 건설이라는 정세의 변화는 전 유럽인으로 하여금 탈출의 꿈을 이루고자 하는 의지를 갖도록 만들었다.

그럼에도 불구하고 제국주의 침략과 강탈의 산물인 미국은 유럽적 뿌리를 갖고 있는 까닭에 유럽의 근대를 출발시킨 르네상스의 기독교도 중심의 인본주의 전통을 계승하고 있었다. 기독교/이교, 문명/야만, 이성/감성, 선/악 등의 이항 대립의 차별적 이식은 기독교 문명이 사악한 이교도들을 계몽시키기 위해 '하느님의 이름으로' 행하는 정복, 강탈, 착취 따위를 정당화했고, 이를 개척적으로 수행할 근대적 주체인 백인 남성을 정점으로 하는 남성/여성, 백인/유색인으로부터 나아가 주인/노예로 발전했다. 관념적 차원에서 인간과 세계에 대한 위계적 인식은 그 객체화된 대상을 효율적으로 파악할 수 있도록 했고, '아는 것이 곧 권력'이라는 인식은 근대적 주체로서 이성적 사유를 할 수 있는 백인 남성은 하위 범주에 속하는 존재들을 소유하고 지배하는 주인이 되었던 것이다. 이들은 하나님으로부터 세계를 계몽할 권한을 부여받은 자기 책무의 즐거운 고행을 "백인 남성의 짐(whiteman's burden)"이라고 표현하면서, 정치 권역, 경제, 성, 인종적 지배와 약탈의 체제를 대내외적으로 구조화해 나갔다. 이스마엘의 미국은 다음과 같이 묘사된다. 
오늘날 아메리카 포경업에서 고급 선원들을 제외하고 수많은 하급 선원의 두 명 중 한 사람도 아메리카 태생은 없다. 포경업의 이런 정황은 아메리카 육군, 해군, 상선, 또는 운하며 철도 건설에 종사하는 인부 집단과 마찬가지 상황이었다. 마찬가지라는 것은 이런 방면에서 순수한 아메리카 사람은 사실상 두뇌를 제공하고, 다른 세계에서 온 사람들은 근육을 풍부하게 제공하는 형편이기 때문이다. (127)
피부색과 태생에 따른 먹이사슬 피라미드 식 서열화는 그대로 노동시장의 약육강식으로 적용되었다. 그 최정점에 있는 계급은 WASP(White Anglo-Saxon Protestant)였다. 이들의 설교에 따라 근대 국가 미국은 스스로 독자적 이념의 창조자이자 파급 주체가 되었다. "설교단이 이 세상의 최선두를 차지하고, 모든 나머지들은 뒤에서 따르는 것이요, 그 설교단이 세계를 선도하는"(56) 것이다. 미국 독립 이후 일어난 독립 도미노 여상은 미주 지역에서 유럽 제국들의 힘의 균형을 어긋나게 만들었고, 설교단에 선 미국은 본격적으로 영토 확장 사업에 뛰어든다. 그 대표적 사례는 1842년 미국-멕시코 전쟁을 통한 텍사스 병합이었다. 당시 대통령이었던 존 타일러(John Tyler)는 이를 정당화하기 위해 대내외적으로 먼로 독트린을 설교했다. 이와 같이 미국은 자기들 영토 확장과 세력권 확대를 위해서 무차별 학살과 점령을 일삼았는데, 이는 "민주주의 확산," 신의 뜻을 이루는 "명백한 운명(Manifest Destiny)" 따위로 포장됐다. 그랫 아널드 슈처(Arnold Schuchter)는 "인본주의적 목표 수립의 껍데기 말과 과정에 있어 미국은 수사적으로 강박되어 있다"면서, 그 예로 명백한 운명, 사회 선교, 공산주의로부터 아시아의 보호 따위를 들고, 언제나 "이런 목표들과 폭력적으로 모순되는 결과의 눈가림에 강박되어 있다"(Schwartz and Disch 재인용 4)고 설명한다.

3. 축복받은 미국과 저주받은 미국

미국에 온다고 모두 미국 시민이 되는 것은 아니었다. 거기서 종교, 출신, 피부색에 따라 분류된다. 특히 인간/짐승에 버금가는 미국인/노예의 구분은 뛰어넘을 수 없는 장벽이었다. 노예는 가축과 똑같이 매매되고, 쟁기를 끄는 소처럼 부려졌다. 미국인들이 '특유의 제도(peculiar institution)'이라고 에둘러 표현했던 재산 노예제(chatter slavery)는 근대인의 욕망의 산물이었던 것이다. 노예제의 감옥을 벗어나더라도 유색인은 어김없이 하나님의 감옥에 갇혀야 했다. 마찬가지로 <모비딕>의 미국인 피쿼드 호에 승선하기 위해서는 이런 검색을 거쳐야 한다. 승선 계약을 앞두고 선두 빌대드(Bildad)가 남태평양 코코보코 섬 출신 작살잡이 퀴컥에게 교회 소속을 증명하라고 하자, 궁지에 몰린 이스마엘은 신에 경배 드리는 전 세계의 위대하고 영원한 최초의 집회에 우리 모두가 속해 있다고 주장한다. "우리들 중 일부만 기이한 변덕을 부려 그 장엄한 신앙에 도달하지 못하지요. 그 장엄한 믿음 안에서 우리 모두 손잡은 겁니다"(100)하고 둘러대며 상황을 모면한다.

( ... ... )

[에이헙]은 모비딕이라는 흰 고래 턱 밑에까지 갔다가 다리 한 쪽을 잃었고, 고래의 턱뼈로 의족을 했다. 그로부터 에이헙은 개인적 경험과 인식의 투사로서 창조된 상(像; 주관적 표상)인 "헤아릴 수 없는 악,"(167) "만져지지 않는 악"(185)을, 한 배를 탄 모두가 정복해야 할 사명으로 확대시켜 나간다. 그는 "근대 기독교도들이 세상의 절반이 그의 지배에 속한다"(185)고 믿었던 일체의 악을 "가시적으로 인성화했고, 모비딕을 실제 공격 가능한 대상으로 만들었던"(186) 것이다.

( ... ... )

4. 정복의 논리와 공존의 논리

5. 다시 여는 말─사귐의 세계관


2014년 9월 5일 금요일

[발췌: D. Graeber's] Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology (2004)

출처: David Graeber (2004). Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology. Prickly Paradigm Press.

※ 발췌 (excerpts) : pp. 79~ 83~

(2) The Struggle Against Work 

The struggle against work has always been central to anarchist organizing. Be this I mean, not the struggle for better work conditions or higher wages, but the struggle to eliminate work, as a relation of domination, entirely. Hence the IWW slogan "against the wage system." This is a long-term goal of course. I the shorter term, what can't be eliminated can at least reduced. Around the turn of the century, the Wobblies and other anarchists played the central role in winning workers the 5-day week and 8-hour day.

  In Western Europe social democratic governments are now, for the first time in almost a century, once again reducing the working week. They are only instituting trifling changes (from a 40-hour week to 35), but in the US no one's even discussing that much. Instead they are discussing whether to eliminate time-and-a-half for overtime. This despite the fact that Americans now spend more hours working than any other population in the world, including Japan. So the Wobblies have reappeared, with what was to be the next step in their program, even back in the '20s: the 16-hour week. ("4-day week, 4-hour day.") Again, on the face of it, this seems completely unrealistic, even insane. But has anyone carried out a feasibility study? After all, it has been repeatedly demonstrated that a considerable chunk of the hours worked in America are only actually necessary to compensate for problems created by the fact that Americans work too much. (Consider here such jobs as all-night pizza deliveryman or dog-washer, or those women who run nighttime day care centers for the children of women who have to work nights providing child care for businesswomen ... not to mention the endless hours spent by specialists cleaning up the emotional and physical damages caused by overwork, the injuries, suicides, divorces, murderous rampages, producing the drugs to pacify children ...)

  So what jobs are necessary?
  Well, for starters, there are lots of jobs whose disappearance, almost everyone would agree, would be a net gain for humanity. Consider here telemarketers, stretch-SUV manufacturers, or for that matter, corporate lawyers. We could also eliminate the entire advertising and PR industries, fire all politicians and their staffs, eliminate anyone remotely connected with an HMO, without even beginning to get near essential social functions. The elimination of advertising would also reduce the production, shipping, and selling of unnecessary products, since those items people actualy do want or need, they will still figure out a way to find out about. The eliminatin of radical inequalities would mean we would no longer require the services of most of the millins currently employed as doormen, private security forces, prison guards, or SWAT teamsㅡno to mention the military. Beyond that, we'd have to do research. Financiers, insurers, and investment bankers are all essentially parasitic beings, but there might be some useful functions in these sectors that could not simply be replaced with software. All in all we might discover that if we identified the work that really did need to be done to maintain a comfortable and ecologically sustainable standard of living, and redistribute the hours, it may turn out that the Wobbly platform is perfectly realistic. Especially if we bear in mind that it's not like anyone would be forced to stop working after four hours if they didnt feel like it. A lot of people do enjoy their jobs, certainly more than they would lounging around doing nothing all day (that's whay in prisons, when they want to punish inmates, the take away their right to work), and if one has eliminated the endless indignities and sadomasochistic games that inevitably follow from top-down organization, one would expect a lot more would. It might even turn out that no one will have to work more than particularly want to. 

minor norte:

Admittedly, all of this presumes the total reorganization of work, a kind of "after the revolution" scenario which I've argued is a necessary tool to even begin to think about human possibilities, even if revolution will probably never take such an apocalyptic form. This of course brings up the "who will do the dirty jobs?" questionㅡone which always gets thrown at anarchists or other utopians. Peter Kropotkin long ago point out that the fallacy of the argument. There's no particular reason dirty jobs have to exist. If one divided up the unpleasant tasks equally, that would mean all the world's top scientists and engineers would have to do them too; one could expect the creation of self-cleaning kitchens and coal-mining robots almost imeediately.

All this is something of an aside though because what I really want to do in this final section is focus on: 


This might giver the reader a chance to have a glane at what anarchist, and anarchist-inspired, organizing is actually likeㅡsome of the contours of the new world now being built in the shell of the oldㅡand to show what the historical-ethnographic perspective I've been trying to develop here, our non-existent science, might be able to contribute to it.

  The first cycle of the new global uprisingㅡwhat the press still insists on referring to, increasingly ridiculously, as "the anti-globalization movement"ㅡbegan with the autonomous municipalities of Chiapas and came to a head with the ^asambleas barreales^ of Buenos Aires, and cities throughout Argentina. There is hardly room here to tell the whole story: beginning with the Zapatistas' rejection of the idea of seizing power and their attempt instead to create a model of democratic self-organization to inspire the rest of Mexico; their initiation of an international network (People's Global ACtion, or PGA) which then put out the calls for the days of action against the WTO (in Seattle), IMF (in Washington, Prague ...) and so on; and finally, the collapse of the Argentine economy, and the overwhelming popular uprising which, again, rejected the very idea that one could find a solution by replacing one set of politicians with another. ( ... ... )

2014년 9월 3일 수요일

[발췌: R.V.Kozinets's] Can Consumer Escape the Market? (2002)

출처: Robert V. Kozinets (2002). "Can Consumer Escape the Market? Emancipatory Illuminations from Burning Man", Journal of Consumer Research, Jun 2002; 29,1.


※ 발췌 (excerpts):
This ethnography explores the emancipatory dynamics of the Burning Man project, a one-week-long antimarket event. Practices used at Burning Man to distance consumers from the market include discourses supporting communality and disparaging market logics, alternative exchange practices, and positioning consumption as self-expressive art. Findings reveal several communal practices that distance consumption from broader rhetorics of efficiency and rationality. Although Burning Man's participants materially support the market, they successfully construct a temporary hypercommunity from which to practice divergent social logics. Escape from the market, if possible at all, must be conceived of as similarly temporary and local.

* * * 

After all the plans, dreaming, and anticipation, on August 31, 1999, I veer and bump my rented blue Malibu across deep desert scars, steering it into a stretch of Nevada desert nestled within a ring of mountains. As the Black Rock Desert's powdery dust swirls a distinctive alkali smell into m nostrils for the first time, I use my Visa card at the gate to purchase a $110 ticket. This charge is more than a three-day adult pass to Walt Disney World, and the fact that I am purchasing it on my Visa card seems inconsistent with Burning Man's acclaimed status as a noncommercial event. Yet Burning Man's organizers justify the high price of the tickets by reference to government payments and the good of the Burning Man community. They emphasize that a not-for-profit, mainly volunteer, limited liability corporation runs Burning Man and justify their acceptance of Visa cards through an egalitarian appeal to accessibility and convenience. Yet the easy ka-ching at the gate makes me suspect that I'm entering a new adult theme park rather than the site of the new revolution. My sense of Burning Man as entertainment changes a bit as I read the ticket, which states the risks and rules of the event: "You voluntarily assume the risk of serious injury or death by attending this event. You must bring enough food, water, shelter and first aid to ^survive^ one week in a harsh desert environment. Commercial vending, firearms, fireworks, rockets and all other explosives prohibited. ... this is not a consumer event. Leave nothing behind when you leave the site. Participant only. No spectators."

( ... ... ) The burning of the Man is the central and uniting metaphor of the festival, one based on purification through fire. Participants are encouraged to consider an act of transference onto the Burning Man by concentrating , while the effigy is burning, on what they would like to eliminate in their lives, what they came to burn. On Saturday night the festival reaches its apogee when the Man is set ablaze, loaded with pyrotechnics. Masses of people drum and dance around its burning form, celebrating wildly, often until dawn.

( ... ... )

Burning Man has been conceived by its organizers as an experimental project that seeks to temporarily create an experience of caring human contact in a society "whose economic and technological dynamic attrits and intrudes upon the integrity of the cultural process" (Harvey 1997). It began in 1985, when Jerry James and Larry Harvey, took a small group of bohemian friends to San Francisco's Baker Beach to burn an eight foot tall figure of a man they had made out of wood (Harvey 1997; Stein 2000). As Harvey (1997) recalls it, at that first event everyone on the beach came running at the moment the man flamed upㅡ"suddenly, our numbers tripled." People began to perform, playing guitar, singing and dancing spontaneously. "What we had instantly created was a community" (Harvey 1997). After holding the event on Baker Beach annually for several years, attracting more people and attention each time, the event (along with the physical dimensions of the Man) grew so large that it was officially banned from the site. In 1990, Harvey and friends moved the event to the Black Rock Desert in Nevada: "4oo square miles of nothing" (Harvey 1997). What began in 1990 with "60 people, maybe 80 people" (Harvey 1997) had grown by 2000 to an event that attracted 26,000. Burning Man 1999's attendees were, on average, 30.5 years old. 64% were male, 61% lived in the state of California, and 37% lived in the Bay Area. ( ... ... )

( ... ... ) With participants exhibiting a strong sense of identity as Burning Man participants ( ... ), sharing rituals such as burning the Man and traditions such as self-expressive participation, and affecting a remarkably strong civic engagement in their temporary city, Burning Man easily passes the threshold for the "three core components or markers of community" laid out by Muniz and O'Guinn (2001, p. 412)


( ... ... )


Burning Man is a weeklong communal gathering that alters participants' consumption meanings and practices through discourse, rules, and practice. The entire community's consumption experiences are socially constructed as distanced from, even outside of, consumer culture and the market. To achieve this, several discursive acts and ritual practices are employed. These acts are as follows. First, prevalent discourse about marketing, corporate greed, and passive consumption attempts to discharge the threat of consumer culture and to argue that Burning Man is an effective, albeit temporary, antidote to it. Second, marketplace logics that usually drive acquisition of goods and services are constructed as absent within the borders of Burning Man through the employment of alternative exchange modes. Finally, as Burning Man participants produce a variety of consumption experiences for one another, they attempt to re-enchant or "re-mystify" the social world (Barber 1995; Weber 1978) by discursively constructing a myriad of forms of production and consumption as forms of self-expressive art. By positioning production and consumption as expressive rather than productive, the rational efficiency motive that drives marketplaces production is discursively disabled, and opportunities for re-enchantment emerge. Through these practices of discursively neutralizing marketing and corporate greed, enacting alternative exchange practices, and re-enchanting production and consumption by relating it in discourse and practice to art, various products and services are effectively disarticulated from market logics and rearticulated onto communal ethos and subcultural ideologies. These discursive and enacted consumption practices are explored in the following sections.

Discursively Positioning Burning Man's Community against the Market

In this section, we explore discourse used to separate communally oriented consumption from negative characteristics ascribed to the market. To do so, we begin with a brief historical genealogy. In 1987, several members of a San Francisco neo-anarchist group named the Cacophony Society became affiliated with Burning Man and, in 1990, suggested the successful relocation to the Black Rock Desert. Beginning as reincarnation of a club based on a class of San Francisco's Communiversity, the Cacophony Society was dedicated to staging and performing strange, edgy events. Those early, cacophony-inspired years of Burning Man were a pyomaniacal anarchy without rules.  In attempts over the ensuing years to improve and manage the rapidly growing event, the event's organizers increasingly encoded social norms in rules that they publicized in written, broadcast, and Web-based communications. The result is an event structured by rules. The local volunteer police force, the Rangers, enforces the rules. They are trained to be diplomatic but can and do use expulsion and physical force. ( ... ... )

Emphasizing the No Vending Rule. As of 2000, the rules most often mentioned included No Spectators (an injunction to participate), Radical Self-Expression, Radical Self-Reliance, Piss Clear (an indicator that body hydration has been maintained by drinking water frequently), and Leave No Trace (ecological responsibility for removing your own garbage). The rule most important to this investigation is the No Vending Rule, which forbids any type of selling by participants at the event. In the opening edition of the ^Black Rock City Gazette^ for Burning Man 1999, the rules against vending were extended to include suggestions to "mask, hide or disguise the eye-sore logos that get in our faces constantly and without our consent when we are in the 'normal world' " (Fang 1999, p. 1). These injunctions against commerce and displaying brand names are ubiquitous at Burning Man, posted on public signs, publicized in documents, mentioned frequently.

To understand the purposes that the No Vending rule and its Mask the Brand Names extension fulfill, we must explore the connection between markets and what Burning Man organizers and participants term "community". This relation is apparent in the five signs of a community published in the Burning Man Organization's (2000) most important document, the required reading "Survival Guide."
  • The first sign of a community is mutual recognition of each member's unique abilities versus the tendency of "commerce and the public sector [to] define us on the basis of deficiency and need" (Burning Man Organization 2000).
  • The second sign is cooperative, collective effort, as opposed to being "made passive" when consuming a service or being part of a mass market that consumes or views "in complete isolation from one another" (Burning Man Organization 2000).
  • Lack of persuasion and overt exploitation is the third sign, in which transactions take place without money, advertising, or hype. 
  • Local myths or the use of stories as opposed to the use of formal business reports is the fourth sign.
  • The fifth sign is a spirit of celebration in which, because of its intensely social character, "the line between work and play is blurred" (Burning Man Organization 2000). 
Analyzing the distinctions of the "Survival Guide," it is evident that it is not exchange per se that is being rejected as anticommunal but the exchanges of large, impersonal markets, markets where power is used to persuade and exploit faceless others. Monetary transactions in these markets are associated with persuasion and exploitation. Less directly, market exchange is related to passivity, social isolation, and joylessness, and defining consumers based on dehumanizing and deficiency-laden terms.

( ... ... )

Using Metaphors and Meanings of Consumption.  ( ... ... )

Burning Man Contrasted with Disneyland and Woodstock. ( ... ... )

Distancing by Keeping the Market in Mind. ( ... ... )

Burning Man's organizers and participants' critiques of consumer culture draw on concepts familiar from Marxism, critical theory, cultural studies, and postmodern market critiques. In some sense, emic familiarity with apparently etic concepts helps account for the sense that Burning Man deliberately explores the "long recognized and central tension of modernity" between the individualism of contemporary society and its underlying conformity (Muniz and O'Guinn 2001, p. 428). ( ... )

( ... ... )

( ... ... ) The discourse creates the sense of a place different from everyday society, a more untainted psychic location for self-transformation and social experimentation. It is as if by keeping the market centered u=in the cultural crosshairs, its alleged evils will be exorcised. An important way this discourse is reinforced and turned into practice is though Burning Man's gift economy.

Altering Social Relations with Alternative Modes of Exchange

( ... ... )

Gift Giving at Burning Man. In 1999 and 2000, attending the event entailed many gift-giving and gift-receiving practices. Considerable discursive treatment was devoted to the importance of the gift to Burning Man's communal experience. The "Survival Guide" states that "Black Rock City is a place of sharing and free exchange within a gift economy" (Burning Man Organization 2000). Gifts central to Burning Man's gift economy are the free entertainment services that, in toto, constitute the Burning Man experience. Other than the Burning of the Man, the urban planning, the Central Cafe, the Ranger police force, medical services, and the cleanup, there are few centrally organized activities. Everything else is created and donated by participants. Communal gifts included frequent staged public performances at hundreads of different theme camps, as well as rave and other dance clubs, many with very sophiscated constructions and expensive sound and light systems. Although most theme camps provided free servicesㅡsuch as free massages, interactive art experiences, bondage and domination rituals, and suntan oil applicationㅡother offered free goods. Many bars offered alcohol, usually for free, but sometimes bartered. The Midnight Popcorn Camp offered free fresh-popped and flavored popcorn at midnight every evening.

At Burning Man 2000, a nude and glowing with glitter young couple explained to me that they saw their naked, glittering bodies as temporary work of art that they gave to the community. ( ... ) However, as the following excerpt from my fieldnotes indicates, there is an interesting reciprocity involved. Not only thanks, but also powerful motivators of attention, status, and prestige are being exchanged. ( ... ... )

Decommodifying, Sacralizing, and Enhancing Community. ( ... ... )

Personalizing and Reducing Social Isolation.  ( ... ... )

Competition and Reciprocation in Gift Giving.  ( ... ... )

Creating Community through Changing Exchange.   Burning Man's organizers encourage and enforce alternative exchange practices. People have been forcibly ejected from the event for selling hamburgers, T-shirts, and other things. Organizers and participants construct alternative modes of exchange as providing alternative social relations that are superior to or purer than market logics. Their superiority evaluations hinge on the involvement of more personalized interactions, which encourage the mutuality that builds a sense of caring, sharing communality. Although brands and commodity goods are the raw material of the Burning Man experience, the decommodifying rituals of nonmonetary exchange seem to overwhelm the commercial nature of the brand and create a communal atmosphere held to be apart from the market. This is the second type of social practice that is used to distance consumers and consumption from the market. ( ... ... )

Re-enchanting by Associating Everyday Consumption with Art

The Connection between Caring Community and Art.  ( ... ... )

Art as Invitation to Self-Expression and Transformation.  ( ... ... )

Art Socially Constructed as Distanced from Market and Corporate Logics.  ( ... ... )

Promethean Struggles between Communities and Markets.  ( ... ... )

Re-enchanting Community through Art and Expression.  ( ... ... )


( ... ... )