Wealth gap

I'm taking Issues in Cultural Studies this semester, and I keep finding myself running up against my well-buttressed wall of skepticism about the role of the Academy in contemporary high capitalist discourse.

Pluralist, tolerant cultural doctrines took root at the same time that private economic power became more concentrated than at any period in post-Industrial Revolution history—but is a plurality of consumers a real plurality? One of the defining characteristics of late twentieth century postmodernism is the penetration of consumerism and the public sphere into what had previously been private. Customization of mediated consumer products and experiences is not liberation from the Frankfurt School's stamp of mass culture: "Have it your way!" is not a liberating philosophy.

In this way, the Academy has been shamefully complicit in legitimizing the extension of private power. By ignoring the economic realities and instead focusing on discursive archeology, the humanities and social sciences have reprehensibly participated in the myth-making of the late twentieth century. We don't talk about class because we're a classist and class-driven society. Even if all other issues are (in theory, at least) on the table, the debate has been steered clear of class because of the class interests of private capital. The illusion of ever-expanding free debate hides the socioeconomic realities because privilege is defined in socioeconomic terms. Keep them debating football stats, Coke vs. Pepsi, and feminism, but never let them talk about the concentration of wealth and media control.

Media control is a funny thing (ha ha) because it means that private capital gets to set the debate terms for discussing itself... How convenient! The media love to debate the role of the media, and while that is transparently self-interested it does tend to hide the "invisible hands" running the show.

What is the sound of one invisible hand clapping?

Income Inequality
Wealth Inequality
Wealth Inequality 2