First,in Vaneigem’s “exchange and gift” chapter, e speaks of the “suppression of economics” and the different meanings behind giving and getting, the motives behind them, and the inequality involved. the act of exchanging is beyond class and power and is a means of survival as well as sacrifice. he mentions in the article the old ways of exchange versus the new and comments that “the crumbling away of human values under the influence of exchange mechanisms leads to the crumbling of exchange itself.” he refers to the feudal gift as insufficient and insists that human relationships should be built more on the actual pleasure of giving and helping each other. he notes at the end of the chapter that in order to transcend the feudal impressions of giving that the exchange must be redefined more harmoniously with each other. In other words, blur the line of class and just give for the sake of giving without pouring out your blood for your “master.”
second, in the situationist manifesto, there is an implied dissatisfaction with technology and its affects on society–alienation and oppression, and the issues of freedom and equality are questioned. The writer suggests that society liberate themselves by redefining economy and superceding the “ancient division” through creative means of survival. he proposes a new organization that exists separate from anything that preexists and creating anew culture free of any predetermined values. he encourages new action and interpretation by artists and asks that the artist not just critique culture and society but actually make revolutionary changes or signify the demands that must be made to make the appropriate changes. Because, for these changes to happen in art/culture/society, participation is necessary, therefore political and social action is required.
Both articles critique the ancient/feudal societies or art to the new and encourage a new way of social activity to potentially liberate the individual and add to a collaborative economy that helps each other see on new (situationalist) terms. I thought that both articles were inspirational and encouraged the reader to take some kind of action in creating hope for the future in our present economy and acts as a good reminder that when given the chance, we should seize the day, and not take down the system necessarily, but change it.
ryanburmeister
March 5th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
Vaneigem’s writing was particularly interesting to me. He is very idealistic in assuming that all men are capable of reasonable, rational, work. The work of giving, without being chained to an amount of trading power (money). I think a great deal of the hierarchical differences in men come from their belief in their own deserving of stratification, whether from their talents, perseverance, or abilities. I do not think it is selfish for incredible people to accept some reward for the incredible things they do for a society. The deserving are usually humble anyways.
It would take a great deal of wisdom to be instilled in a population like the USA to expect anything like his gift economy proposals. Though I think many people are capable, the majority of the society in the country is so engrossed in triviality and illogical and selfish pretenses, it is not likely anything like this could happen except within small societal niches.
Being a new transfer student, I just moved to San Francisco. I live in oceanview, and though I think there are a great deal of reasons why it is how it is, I think it is and could be a very nice place to live, given the common culture makes some drastic changes.
I do not think he is wrong when he makes statements that assert that a society so obsessed with its technology and consumption is bound to lose all sense of community. It is directly observable in this city that often a sense community gifting is no more than the ‘love’ you can write on a check.
Daphne
March 17th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
I did like his positive view on how he believed men are able to be rational and just. I’ve always been interested in gift economy philosophy, and enjoyed reading on it. Consumption is a big problem here in our country. It’s not even the matter of consumption, I think its the grand scale on how much we consume. If we could cut our consumption habits by a quarter, it would make such a huge world of a difference.
Stephanie Sorth
March 20th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
“Exchange and Gift” is absolutely beyond words, and for that very reason absolutely immune to all assimilation. It captures the main problem with life that we are all aware of but cannot quite put our finger on: a lingering emptiness, a ‘nothing’ where a ’something’ should be. This is the magic of Vaneigem’s prose. He knows the real cause of it, and rightfully accuses us of ignoring and dawdling for so long: the social order and the alienation it causes. He advocates fierce rebellion, joyful suicide, above all collective revolution as an end to all isolation. Ultimately, he is himself, and this should be enough for us to change our lives completely. Vaneigem wants no following, no idolatry; he wants what everyone really wants, change.
Jennytam
May 22nd, 2008 at 10:05 pm
i like the idea of man transforming nature instead of destroying it. i also like the idea of a gift economy- kind of like a good will drive with no currency. too bad big companies that make poisonous and necessary items (such as tv’s and other electronics) don’t have a program to “buy back” the device/use the credit from that device to help customers get a different device while donating the old refurbished device to those who need it.
Cassandra Sechler
03/05/08
First,in Vaneigem’s “exchange and gift” chapter, e speaks of the “suppression of economics” and the different meanings behind giving and getting, the motives behind them, and the inequality involved. the act of exchanging is beyond class and power and is a means of survival as well as sacrifice. he mentions in the article the old ways of exchange versus the new and comments that “the crumbling away of human values under the influence of exchange mechanisms leads to the crumbling of exchange itself.” he refers to the feudal gift as insufficient and insists that human relationships should be built more on the actual pleasure of giving and helping each other. he notes at the end of the chapter that in order to transcend the feudal impressions of giving that the exchange must be redefined more harmoniously with each other. In other words, blur the line of class and just give for the sake of giving without pouring out your blood for your “master.”
second, in the situationist manifesto, there is an implied dissatisfaction with technology and its affects on society–alienation and oppression, and the issues of freedom and equality are questioned. The writer suggests that society liberate themselves by redefining economy and superceding the “ancient division” through creative means of survival. he proposes a new organization that exists separate from anything that preexists and creating anew culture free of any predetermined values. he encourages new action and interpretation by artists and asks that the artist not just critique culture and society but actually make revolutionary changes or signify the demands that must be made to make the appropriate changes. Because, for these changes to happen in art/culture/society, participation is necessary, therefore political and social action is required.
Both articles critique the ancient/feudal societies or art to the new and encourage a new way of social activity to potentially liberate the individual and add to a collaborative economy that helps each other see on new (situationalist) terms. I thought that both articles were inspirational and encouraged the reader to take some kind of action in creating hope for the future in our present economy and acts as a good reminder that when given the chance, we should seize the day, and not take down the system necessarily, but change it.
Vaneigem’s writing was particularly interesting to me. He is very idealistic in assuming that all men are capable of reasonable, rational, work. The work of giving, without being chained to an amount of trading power (money). I think a great deal of the hierarchical differences in men come from their belief in their own deserving of stratification, whether from their talents, perseverance, or abilities. I do not think it is selfish for incredible people to accept some reward for the incredible things they do for a society. The deserving are usually humble anyways.
It would take a great deal of wisdom to be instilled in a population like the USA to expect anything like his gift economy proposals. Though I think many people are capable, the majority of the society in the country is so engrossed in triviality and illogical and selfish pretenses, it is not likely anything like this could happen except within small societal niches.
Being a new transfer student, I just moved to San Francisco. I live in oceanview, and though I think there are a great deal of reasons why it is how it is, I think it is and could be a very nice place to live, given the common culture makes some drastic changes.
I do not think he is wrong when he makes statements that assert that a society so obsessed with its technology and consumption is bound to lose all sense of community. It is directly observable in this city that often a sense community gifting is no more than the ‘love’ you can write on a check.
I did like his positive view on how he believed men are able to be rational and just. I’ve always been interested in gift economy philosophy, and enjoyed reading on it. Consumption is a big problem here in our country. It’s not even the matter of consumption, I think its the grand scale on how much we consume. If we could cut our consumption habits by a quarter, it would make such a huge world of a difference.
“Exchange and Gift” is absolutely beyond words, and for that very reason absolutely immune to all assimilation. It captures the main problem with life that we are all aware of but cannot quite put our finger on: a lingering emptiness, a ‘nothing’ where a ’something’ should be. This is the magic of Vaneigem’s prose. He knows the real cause of it, and rightfully accuses us of ignoring and dawdling for so long: the social order and the alienation it causes. He advocates fierce rebellion, joyful suicide, above all collective revolution as an end to all isolation. Ultimately, he is himself, and this should be enough for us to change our lives completely. Vaneigem wants no following, no idolatry; he wants what everyone really wants, change.
i like the idea of man transforming nature instead of destroying it. i also like the idea of a gift economy- kind of like a good will drive with no currency. too bad big companies that make poisonous and necessary items (such as tv’s and other electronics) don’t have a program to “buy back” the device/use the credit from that device to help customers get a different device while donating the old refurbished device to those who need it.