There is a document whose message has survived over the years
precisely because it was expressed in the manner that it tried to
convey. It became something of a Hippie cliché during the sixties
unfortunately, but it has always been a statement of guiding
principles for me. This document starts with the following lines:
Go placidly amid the noise and haste,
and remember what peace there may be in silence.
As far as possible, without surrender,
be on good terms with all persons. Speak your truth quietly and
clearly; and listen to others, even to the dull and the ignorant,
they too have their story. Avoid loud and aggressive persons, they
are vexations to the spirit..
This is of course is the Desiderata (by
Max Ehrmann. It should be noted that there has been some controversy
on who wrote it. The Wikipedia
reference indicates Mr. Ehrmann and the Rev. Frederick Kates, as
denoted by the Yale Book of Quotations, but this link
from Fleur-de-lis Designs has a more detailed history.)
It is interesting to consider that the
word desiderata is Latin for "desired things." It is even
more interesting when you consider that Mr. Ehrmann also wrote a book
entitled "The Desiderata of Happiness," which was a
collection of philosophical poems (and highly recommended.) It is
interesting for me to ponder when I consider it within the context of
our current social household (from the Etymology of the word
economy). Desired things, and the desired things of happiness
indeed. If you read some of Mr. Ehrmann's poems you come to see that
he too was looking to ask deeper questions of how to understand these
things within an overly rational (which is to say overly objectified
and abstracted) society. What, you might ask, does this have to do
with the "Hard Sell," and whether it's immoral or not? Let
us consider it.
It is human to desire things of course.
We also want to be heard so as to know that we matter. We thus want
to express ourselves in varied ways (imagining, building and
maintaining all sorts of material and immaterial constructs). We
want useful tools (that we forge strong and lasting relationships
with) with which to make and preserve our expressions. We want
reasonably comfortable and secure surroundings with which to center
our growth and extension of connection (via family, friends,
neighbors and expressive collaborators). And we want the material
sufficiency to allow for leisure, recreation and contemplation. This
is all human and healthy, but in a social household that is the
poster child for abstraction, what we are meant to desire must
necessarily be manipulated at the very least, and most probably
corrupted in the long run. How can it be otherwise when each of us
toils within our own bit of isolated labor in the great matrix of
manufacture; where not only is what is manufactured decided by
others, but that what is to be desired is manufactured as well. And
for all of this to work (all puns intended) there has to be the hard
sell.
In considering this we need to put
aside for the moment the fundamental absurdity of a people who have
allowed themselves to become so disconnected, not only from each
other, but from that which sustains them. This is inherent in a
specialized, commercial-commodity form of economy; something we've
already explored in previous tenet concerning connection. For now,
however, I want to discuss what I see as the horrible effects that a
world of the hard sell engenders.
Even though most of us might, in a
general sense, have a visceral connection to what the hard sell is
(we know it when we see and hear it), I still think the first
question we must ask is: What separates the discourse of ordinary
exchange (the regular give and take dialogue) that might surround the
barter or trade of anything material or immaterial? And in this, of
course, we can include the notion of selling someone on an idea or
belief, as well as a physical item. Towards that end I think we can
declare at least 3 parameters in which extremes, omissions, or
specific qualities, will make our distinction. So let us start.
Let's call the first parameter
"Reciprocity". In this I would encapsulate the notion of
how much actual give and take is possible. I think we can all agree
that, in the hard sell, it is mostly a case of a one sided exchange.
We are only shown or told what the seller wants us to see or hear;
and all without much possibility of issuing answerable questions in
return.
Let's call the next parameter "Full
Disclosure." This is where we ask the related questions of not
only what the seller really wants to gain from what is being sold,
but is what is touted as being the value or usefulness to us truly
intrinsic to the thing (does it actually do or provide what is
promised)? In the hard sell, because of both the first, and the
following parameters, these questions become tricky indeed. One
might even ask, would the hard sell be necessary at all if those who
avoided full disclosure weren't around?
And finally, let's call the last
parameter the "Lay of the Lever." One might also call this
the "Background of the Button," but whatever metaphor of
instrumentality one chooses one is talking about the means by which
we are pushed or played upon to get us to accept the thing being
offered. This is where the formulation of the persuasive message is
guided by varying degrees of application to things that are important
to us. Hardly a problem in ordinary persuasive discussion,
certainly, but when the seller has the "hard" motivation
all propriety goes out the window (and truly nothing is sacred). For
in this parameter lies the subtle and not so subtle use of every
aspect of our baser psychology; our deepest passions, fears,
prejudices, and fantasies. The hard sell neither cares for which, or
to what extreme, any of these basic aspects of our nature are taken
advantage of; for there is only one bottom line for the hard sell,
only one measure that really matters, and that is to close the deal.
I think there is also a certain
desperation behind the hard sell. I hesitate to call it an actual
parameter, but I think it an important aspect of it. Certainly
understandable within the context of a specialized,
commercial-commodity form of economy. With an ever increasing number
of livelihoods dependent upon the creation of consumables, and with
ever improving technique allowing fewer producers to produce even
more, how could there not be desperation to get the consumables
consumed. A process that becomes consuming in and of itself.
"Competitive Consumption" is what I call it. That it is
insanity is certainly (at least at some level; especially concerning
the inherent limits of any planet keeping an intricate web of organic
processing going) obvious to all of us. That it creates more than
one moral dilemma perhaps not so obvious.
What we are talking about, in my
opinion, when we consider the notion of the hard sell, is nothing
less than violence done to the human condition in general, and the
individual soul and spirit in particular. For in the world of the
hard sell very little can be sincere or genuine when the motives of
most must be suspect. Electrified facade, glowing terms, and
resonant imagery become the norms (along with the amplification of
everything in the lower brain). Very little is communicated to
actually inform precisely because that would encourage thought and
questions; when what is really desired of your desire is more akin to
impulse and reflex. That cynicism and apathy result should be of no
great surprise to anyone (and sadly, isn't very surprising any more).
How can Loving Structure be encouraged in such a toxic atmosphere?
How can we even hope to continue creating shared vision (the essence
of cooperation and in finding common ground) when we atomize to
isolated interest groups (commercial, social, or political) all
working their own sales pitch? All with a bill of goods that hides
both motive and actual value; with everybody getting more and more
desperate to make their sale.
I hasten to add that I am not so naïve
as to think that the temptation to resort to the hard sell can ever
be ultimately removed from human behavior. Any more than greed or
envy might be completely removed. Heaven help us though if we can't
come to see the hot house we've created for these kinds of emotions
and behaviors to grow in.
I started this with the first few lines
of the Desiderata. I would ask the reader to harkens back to it and
consider this: Do we really want to continue down the path we're on,
or do we want to create a social household where "Speak(ing)
your truth quietly and clearly..." is all anyone would ever want
to do? And where, as well, the notion of really listening to others
would be automatic, even if you perceived them to be "...dull
and the ignorant..." for you would grant them the same respect
and sincerity that you would expect them to grant you? If we could
apply the immense creativity of this nation we could figure out a
Loving Structure to provide the green house where connection and
cooperation could flourish. This is another example of making
something and believing it. We first need to make it in our heads
however. Make it there and then believe in it. We can then engage
each other in real give and take dialogue, hammering out a common
ground for a shared vision. And make no mistake. Americans with a
shared vision are a true force of nature. It is a choice as to
whether that force will be used for good or ill. What I find truly
depressing, though, is trying to decide which is worse: An America
that can no longer forge a shared vision, or an America that creates
one that ends up causing no end of grief and mayhem. With the way
we're going, and the way the rest of the world will probably follow,
would there be much effective difference in the two outcomes?
No comments:
Post a Comment