5 ms·

On a similar note: I'd like to see an effort to eliminate the word "consumers" from our leaders lexicons. Cows are consumers... Hogs are consumers... Consume

On a similar note: I'd like to see an effort to eliminate the word "consumers" from our leaders lexicons. Cows are consumers... Hogs are consumers... Consumers are commodities that are fattened until they're slaughtered! Words have significance on both conscious and subliminal levels. Beware a government AND a corporate elite that has come to think of you as a 'consumer'... a 'subject'. 'Citizens' are a nuisance! Jefferson, Franklin and Adams knew that words were important. Personal Democracy: Disruption as an Enlightenment Essential http://culturalengineer.blogspot.com/2010/06/personal-democracy-disruption-as.html http://culturalengineer.blogspot.com/2010/06/personal-democr...

SkyMarshal 16y ago
Have an upvote. I just clicked this thread to say the same thing. You are a Citizen, not a Consumer!
michael_dorfman 16y ago
Cows are consumers... Hogs are consumers... Consumers are commodities that are fattened until they're slaughtered! Words have significance on both conscious and subliminal levels. How about "Bunnies are consumers. Kittens are consumers. Consumers are cute and fluffy!" Actually, consumers are, umm, those who consume things. As opposed to producers. If you've got some subliminal association between consumption and livestock, well, that's you.
- sp332 16y ago
  "Consumer" is a useful term in economics, but it has negative stereotypical meanings in everyday use.
  - jamesbritt 16y ago
    "negative stereotypical meanings in everyday use." For whom? And when does it come up in "everyday use"? I mean, aside from being used by economists or businesses when talking about economics or business?
    - SkyMarshal 16y ago
      You should read up on the historical development of the use of language and linguistics to shape culture and society, both from the advertising industry and from the feminist movement. The contemporary labeling of citizens as consumers is no accident, and not just an artifact of the mainstreaming of the economics field.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- gruseom 16y ago
  I don't think it's subliminal. The issue isn't the technical meaning of "consumer" but the fact that it has replaced "citizen" as the default for referring to human beings in our society. Humans walk, but one would never hear "What does this mean for walkers?" in a news item, unless of course it were a news item about traffic or something. The implication of this usage of "consumer" is that consumption isn't just something we do, it's what we are. That is deeply fucked. I couldn't care less about the political agenda of everybody-should-consume-less, but the idea that humans' primary role in society is not to be active members of a polity (the meaning of "citizen") but rather essentially to eat things, is a violation of our best traditions and intuitions. We are called to more than that. The replacement of "citizen" with "consumer" is as significant as the replacement of "subject" with "citizen" was in the first place.
  - michael_dorfman 16y ago
    Where do you see "consumer" used with "citizen" would do better? Besides the Consumer Protection Agency (where it is completely appropriate), I can't remember hearing it used by the government. I only hear "What does this mean for consumers?" when it is in reference to prices, or purchasing, etc. "What does this mean for citizens?" only makes sense when discussing civic issues. Could you provide a concrete example of the mis-use you claim is rife?
    - gruseom 16y ago
      Next time I see one I'll try to remember to come back and post it here. In the meantime, any suggestions for how we can measure this? One crude measure: Google comes up with 88M hits for "citizen" and 270M for "consumer".
      - codingthewheel 16y ago
        Searchable full-text databases of political speeches. I've done it. You'll find both words used all over the place, with roughly the same meaning.
    - codingthewheel 16y ago
- CapitalistCartr 16y ago
  It's not a matter of whether we're consumers or producers; it's that, for purposes of government, that's not the relevant appellation. We're citizens. Citizens have a government that serves their interests. Consumers are passive; the sheep some politicians prefer. A consumer might raise Cain over a corporate made product, but not over a government policy; that's something a citizen would do. Labels matter.
  - philwelch 16y ago
    Specifics matter. Please give several valid examples of the word "consumer" being used by contemporary Western politicians where "citizen" would be more appropriate. And no, a single example--or an expression of disbelief that not everyone agrees with you--will simply not do here.
jamesbritt 16y ago
I'd like to see an effort to eliminate the phrase "our leaders" from the lexicon. These are people who happen to have access to power. Not much leading going on, and I certainly don't consider anyone as leading me. Stop conceding authority.
- SkyMarshal 16y ago
  Or we could just redefine 'leading' to mean avoiding doing the right thing and instead trying to guess which way the prevailing wind is blowing and positioning yourself to both exploit it and retroactively take credit for it.
cia_plant 16y ago
Your argument tends to support the point that it is better to be a citizen than a consumer, but that doesn't imply that it is better to call Americans 'citizens' rather than 'consumers.' If Americans really are better summed-up as 'consumers,' then it would be a kind of political correctness not to apply that label. Do you see it as inaccurate to call most Americans 'consumers'?
- CulturalNgineer 16y ago
  Nope, not inaccurate at all. We're also 'excreters', 'respirators' and metabolizers generally. The document discussed here and the word 'citizen' refer to a conscious sense of responsibility to and for the "Commons" in addition to oneself. This is, of course, why I favor a rational solution to our undocumented resident issues. This involves BOTH a more secure system... but also a path to CITIZENSHIP for those here. The 'elites' of BOTH the LEFT and RIGHT, each for their own reasons have encouraged a lax approach to the issue of labor... and thereby have degraded both the role of work and of citizenship. Being a CITIZEN is about taking back that power over and responsibility for... the Commons. And so now American workers and Undocumented people who've been given a very mixed message are pitted against one another. Degrading the role of citizenship for everyone. Ask yourself who benefits from this division?
- tomjen3 16y ago
  Yes, it would be inaccurate - true americans consume much, but they also produce a great deal (even if, at present, they consume more, on average, than they produce). This board, if any should see how Americans produce.
philwelch 16y ago
I've yet to see that many inappropriate uses of the word "consumer". For those of us versed in economics, it's a real word with a real meaning, and there's no evidence in this thread that the usage of "consumer" deviates very far from that meaning. Changing language for political purposes is a dubious business to begin with. Everyone just learns what the new euphemisms mean and no one's actual thinking is changed.When the existing semantics are already pretty accurate, the process of euphemism just makes the language inelegant and confusing. "Citizen" has a distinct meaning--there's no need to turn it into a euphemism for "consumer", or to discourage frank and precise discussion of how things affect people in various economic roles.

SkyMarshal 16y ago

Have an upvote. I just clicked this thread to say the same thing. You are a Citizen, not a Consumer!

michael_dorfman 16y ago

Cows are consumers... Hogs are consumers... Consumers are commodities that are fattened until they're slaughtered! Words have significance on both conscious and subliminal levels. How about "Bunnies are consumers. Kittens are consumers. Consumers are cute and fluffy!" Actually, consumers are, umm, those who consume things. As opposed to producers. If you've got some subliminal association between consumption and livestock, well, that's you.

sp332 16y ago
"Consumer" is a useful term in economics, but it has negative stereotypical meanings in everyday use.
- jamesbritt 16y ago
  "negative stereotypical meanings in everyday use." For whom? And when does it come up in "everyday use"? I mean, aside from being used by economists or businesses when talking about economics or business?
  - SkyMarshal 16y ago
    You should read up on the historical development of the use of language and linguistics to shape culture and society, both from the advertising industry and from the feminist movement. The contemporary labeling of citizens as consumers is no accident, and not just an artifact of the mainstreaming of the economics field.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
gruseom 16y ago
I don't think it's subliminal. The issue isn't the technical meaning of "consumer" but the fact that it has replaced "citizen" as the default for referring to human beings in our society. Humans walk, but one would never hear "What does this mean for walkers?" in a news item, unless of course it were a news item about traffic or something. The implication of this usage of "consumer" is that consumption isn't just something we do, it's what we are. That is deeply fucked. I couldn't care less about the political agenda of everybody-should-consume-less, but the idea that humans' primary role in society is not to be active members of a polity (the meaning of "citizen") but rather essentially to eat things, is a violation of our best traditions and intuitions. We are called to more than that. The replacement of "citizen" with "consumer" is as significant as the replacement of "subject" with "citizen" was in the first place.
- michael_dorfman 16y ago
  Where do you see "consumer" used with "citizen" would do better? Besides the Consumer Protection Agency (where it is completely appropriate), I can't remember hearing it used by the government. I only hear "What does this mean for consumers?" when it is in reference to prices, or purchasing, etc. "What does this mean for citizens?" only makes sense when discussing civic issues. Could you provide a concrete example of the mis-use you claim is rife?
  - gruseom 16y ago
    Next time I see one I'll try to remember to come back and post it here. In the meantime, any suggestions for how we can measure this? One crude measure: Google comes up with 88M hits for "citizen" and 270M for "consumer".
    - codingthewheel 16y ago
      Searchable full-text databases of political speeches. I've done it. You'll find both words used all over the place, with roughly the same meaning.
  - codingthewheel 16y ago
CapitalistCartr 16y ago
It's not a matter of whether we're consumers or producers; it's that, for purposes of government, that's not the relevant appellation. We're citizens. Citizens have a government that serves their interests. Consumers are passive; the sheep some politicians prefer. A consumer might raise Cain over a corporate made product, but not over a government policy; that's something a citizen would do. Labels matter.
- philwelch 16y ago
  Specifics matter. Please give several valid examples of the word "consumer" being used by contemporary Western politicians where "citizen" would be more appropriate. And no, a single example--or an expression of disbelief that not everyone agrees with you--will simply not do here.

jamesbritt 16y ago

I'd like to see an effort to eliminate the phrase "our leaders" from the lexicon. These are people who happen to have access to power. Not much leading going on, and I certainly don't consider anyone as leading me. Stop conceding authority.

SkyMarshal 16y ago
Or we could just redefine 'leading' to mean avoiding doing the right thing and instead trying to guess which way the prevailing wind is blowing and positioning yourself to both exploit it and retroactively take credit for it.

cia_plant 16y ago

Your argument tends to support the point that it is better to be a citizen than a consumer, but that doesn't imply that it is better to call Americans 'citizens' rather than 'consumers.' If Americans really are better summed-up as 'consumers,' then it would be a kind of political correctness not to apply that label. Do you see it as inaccurate to call most Americans 'consumers'?

CulturalNgineer 16y ago
Nope, not inaccurate at all. We're also 'excreters', 'respirators' and metabolizers generally. The document discussed here and the word 'citizen' refer to a conscious sense of responsibility to and for the "Commons" in addition to oneself. This is, of course, why I favor a rational solution to our undocumented resident issues. This involves BOTH a more secure system... but also a path to CITIZENSHIP for those here. The 'elites' of BOTH the LEFT and RIGHT, each for their own reasons have encouraged a lax approach to the issue of labor... and thereby have degraded both the role of work and of citizenship. Being a CITIZEN is about taking back that power over and responsibility for... the Commons. And so now American workers and Undocumented people who've been given a very mixed message are pitted against one another. Degrading the role of citizenship for everyone. Ask yourself who benefits from this division?
tomjen3 16y ago
Yes, it would be inaccurate - true americans consume much, but they also produce a great deal (even if, at present, they consume more, on average, than they produce). This board, if any should see how Americans produce.

philwelch 16y ago

I've yet to see that many inappropriate uses of the word "consumer". For those of us versed in economics, it's a real word with a real meaning, and there's no evidence in this thread that the usage of "consumer" deviates very far from that meaning. Changing language for political purposes is a dubious business to begin with. Everyone just learns what the new euphemisms mean and no one's actual thinking is changed.When the existing semantics are already pretty accurate, the process of euphemism just makes the language inelegant and confusing. "Citizen" has a distinct meaning--there's no need to turn it into a euphemism for "consumer", or to discourage frank and precise discussion of how things affect people in various economic roles.