Decentering of the subject
(From Firat and Venkatesh Postmodernity: The Age of Marketing; 1993)
The modernist project placed the human
being at the center, as the subject-that is,
as the agent that acts through and upon
others; nature and objects. The Cartesian
idea of the subject, as it is known, has dominated
modern thought. This subject is endowed
with the ability to act independently
and autonomously in the choice and pursuit
of one’s goals. This subject is also constituted
in terms of the separation between the body
and the mind (Rorty, 1979, pp. 142-145); a
precondition for the subject to graduate from
a state of being to a state of knowing. The
existential subject has now become the cognitive
subject. Knowledge acquisition for this
subject is possible by separating or distancing
oneself from a pure experience of being in
order to cievelop a cognitive understanding
of being; its context and conditions. Modern
society is organized to reflect and actively
promise the potential of the cognitive subject
by providing the knowledge and the means to
act through science and technology, The
products of modernity (of science) arc really
meant to serve the ‘subjects’ of modernity.
Postmodernists see this narrative of
modernity to be mythical or illusory. According
to them, there is, a confusion between
the subject and the object (products of the
market) as to who or what is in. control
(Hassan, 1987; Jameson, 1983). Rather than
the subject controlling the circumstances and
processes of life in one’s interactions with
the object, the objects are viewed as determining
the conditions and procedures of
consumption (Baudrillard, 1983b). In driving
cars, using microwave ovens, washing machines,
computers, and the like, the human
being is generally the follower of instructions,
the correct ways of doing things. One’s
actions are determined by the features and
structures of the products. One can as easily
visualize that the role of the human being is
to allow products to perform their functions
rather than products enabling the achievement
of human goals. Concerns for the health
of the economy, the market, often seem to
override the concern for the goals of individuals
in policies adopted by the state and/or
corporations.
The confusion between the subject and
the object is further reinforced by the fact
that consumers tend to perceive themselves
as marketable items. This tendency is reinforced
by the marketing system in encouraging
representations of oneself as images. The
marketing orientation dominates not only the
positioning of products in the market by organizations,
but also in positioning of the
consumer itself, say, in the social market
(Far-at, in press). As briefly discussed earlier,
consumers assume different images and personalities
in different situations to make
themselves acceptable in each case. This is
much in evidence in today’s “body” culture.
For example, many consumers, male and female,
are increasingly buying plastic surgery
and body implants to customize parts of their
bodies to cultural expectations. There is a
distancing of one’s own gaze from one’s own
body to “view” oneself and scrutinize
one’s own images, assessing each fragmented body
part in terms of its contribution to these
images. This scrutiny often occurs from the
perspective of the other; that is, not from
one’s own, autonomous perspective, but from
the perspective of cultural expectations which
are internalized by the consumer (Emberley,
1987; Kroker and Kroker, 1987). This is really
a test of how well we fit the images
required for success. In this sense, fashion
becomes the metaphor for culture (Faurschou,
1990; Sawchuk, 1987). Such objectification
of one’s own body and self allows one
to be consumed; just like a product, acting
only to fulfill a prespecified function determined
by the market system. Specifically,
consumers become products consumed for
the production of other objects, in the offices,
production lines, and elsewhere.
