"Idiocracy" and the Downfall of U.S. Society on the Backs of the Poor

I don't think there are words to describe how disturbing and grotesque Idiocracy was. It was the most difficult film to watch, even more so than Taxidermia (and Taxidermia was pretty disturbing and difficult to watch). However, Taxidermia, despite it's body horror, offers an interesting deconstruction/analysis of capitalism. On the other hand, the only reason Idiocracy we can use the text to deconstruct notions of citizenship and consumption, as these week's readings do, is because of it's utterly nauseating representation of citizenship and consumption. 

Idiocracy takes the simple stance on consumption that Nestor Canclini in "Consumption Is Good For Thinking" directly challenges - the idea that consumption is "associated with useless expenditures and irrational compulsions," and consumption as the result of the manipulation of docile audiences by the media (37).

It blames the poor and "uneducated" for the downfall of society into a consumerist dystopia. As Canclini writes, "There are still some who fault the poor for buying televisions, video player and cars when they don't even own a home" (37). This is the exact argument the film makes. It blames thee poor's consumption habits for the downfall of society. It' blame logic is based on a negatively stereotyped notion of the poor - as lazy, dumb, promiscuously irresponsible, irrational, impulsive, etc.  

Joe ("Not Sure") represents the values of the ideal neoliberal citizen (individual, self-responsibility). And his success (becoming the President) at the end of the film signals what I think is the ultimate moral of the story - that diverting from such neoliberal values will lead to the downfall of U.S. society. It serves as a call to regulate the poor - both their fertility and their consumption habits. It had an eerie undercurrent suggestion of eugenics (as Trace's post so eloquently notes in his post). 

But as most of the readings this week point out, the relationship between citizenship and consumption is more complex than the way it's posed in Idiocracy. 

As Canclini notes, "Buying objects, wearing them on the body, or distributing them throughout the home, assigning them a place within an order, endowing them with functions in one's communication with others, are resources for thinking one's own body, the ustable social order, and uncertain interaction with others. To consume is to make more sense of a world..." [emphasis mine] (42). 

And don't even get me started on the racial politics of the film...