Neoliberalism, Emotionality and Accessibility

I wanted to touch upon ideas already expressed separately by two posters, but which work powerfully together in our discussion of neoliberalism and even The Kiss of the Spider Woman: emotionality and accessibility. Clarke does bring up the interesting point that descriptions of the market are anthropomorphized and feminized (the market is “nervous” or “anxious;” depression is used to describe both the economy and the state of being that typically goes along with that economy), and this got me thinking about how the former (emotionality) helps to distance us from the latter (accessibility to the real issues).

I think what’s interesting is the fact that the vast majority of people (especially in this country), though of course directly affected by economic policy and governmental regulation, simply don’t care enough to engage with the issue. Neoliberalist economic policies may have in the last few decades increased the standard of living in various countries around the world, particularly in countries still developing, but there are very plain negative consequences—the astronomically increasing wage gap, for example. Meanwhile collective “revolution,” brought up by Harvey, and reflected in something like the recent Occupy Movements, seem silly in the face of such staggering opposition.

I tie these issues into the relationship between Valentin and Molina in Kiss of the Spider Woman—Valentin, who chooses to engage in the struggles against an (unidentified?) oppressive regime directly, becoming a part of the cause, and Molina, who prefers to retreat to escapist fantasies of cinema—entertainment, pleasure, leisure, which he can feel good about. The way that advertising is targeted toward consumers in a capitalist society is very similar—spend and consume, we are told, and we can feel better both about ourselves and our places as citizens in a capitalist society. The documentary Inequality for All, which I very much enjoyed (and which comes to mind as it was also mentioned in a previous post) does a solid job of showing how this apathy can easily be our downfall and helps to pull the wool over our eyes.

I think the “average American” (and I’m including myself in this group) thinks about the concept of neoliberalism (or at least what we know of it) in a positive fashion—ideas of deregulation and free trade, and markets based on supply and demand seem to be positively American, in a way. As long as we can enjoy our movies, then all is fine! But as Harvey mentions, “The assumption that individual freedoms are guaranteed by freedom of the market and of trade is a cardinal feature of neoliberal thinking, and it has long dominated the US stance towards the rest of the world.” It is not until things very obviously go sour that this illusion is shattered. For me, the problem with neoliberalist policy and capitalist society stated very plainly is the inaccessibility of the former (how many of us engage in conversations about the goings-on of the private sector on a regular basis?), and the emotionality of the latter. After all—who wants to talk about the failed “freedoms” of neoliberalist policy when a good story is on?