I think the most interesting thing to me about collections is that the word can be applied to so many different contexts. I voiced me excitement in class over what Debbie called the "post-marxist" bit in Stewart's piece that pegged collectors as both producers and consumers. I don't think I was excited about this simply because I like Marx, but because for me it hinted at a much larger (and probably Marxist) point.
If you think about it, communities are collections of people organized to fulfill their functions within the context of their respective social environments. To think of living beings as parts of a collection is a fascinating concept to me because for a collection to exist it must have a collector. Before this blog is bombarded with comments I should make clear that I am not hinting at God- far from it. I am however hinting at an organizational force which in the context of Marx would be nothing more than the economy. Human beings are far too complex to simply be summed up with money(get it?) and yet it seems as if we always are. I've chosen the Academic route because it seems like the only thing I can stand doing most of the day and still earn a living at. If I were to do what I really wanted it would probably entail playing a lot of guitar, traveling, and probably a lot of video games as well. None of these interests would prove fruitful financially and none would serve much purpose in the context of any community. Why then does art and literature continue to exist? I would a venture a guess that it is because not all human behavior is tied to survival. The paradox is that one must indeed survive to carry out such behavior, often leaving no time to do so. If I'm to retain any type of clarity I should probably just say it now- the rhetoric of progress and human achievement that everyone seems so gung-ho to buy into is to me a moot point. I believe firmly, that the principle of economic categorization present in all human collectivities stifles individuality by forcing assimilation through necessity. Jesus christ I write abstractly- I need to fix that at some point. What I mean, is that I believe in free will and that social construction is partly a result of personal interest, despite the countless ways that we are influenced. What I mean, is that there are many things I would rather spend my time doing that would be of no good to anyone but myself (unless you like my writing or my music). The principle of collectivity prevents that, because it is organized(or categorized) around the idea that we must fulfill social functions, progress, and survive. I say, progress is necessary to the extent that we can break these categories down and actually have time to enjoy ourselves, which I guess in the end makes me Marxist.
I just learned something new about myself. Neat.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I'm interested by this concept about living beings as part of a collection, more specifically I'm interested in collecting humans. Hmm, or rather interested in how human beings can be considered parts of collections. Your Marxy follow up to this idea reminded me, in some weird hang-over way, of Foucault and his talk of "Founders of Discursivity," in his wildly inventive "What is an Author."
Although I hinted at God as a collector in my blog about Noah, I don't want to consider God as a human collector either. Instead, as Foucault points out, every once in awhile people come along and arrange or create a discourse that people then use to collect themselves.. does that make sense? Example: Marx creates Marxism and so we argue that either Marxism, as a thing in and of itself, collects people, or that people collect people based on ideological interest..? Okay I give up you win... post an angry comment on my blog if that doesn't make a ton of sense.. but I think it does and my mom says I'm cool.
Post a Comment