[...]
what if consumption has something relational about it?
(we must become interested in consumption @apass, Pierre, Foad, constantvzw)
*non-correlationist marketing theory* [=/= correlationism: humans doing things in the world to inanimate objects to make immaterial effects happen ~-> access]

interobjective consumption

...................................

ask anyone to give a definition of ‘food’ --> ‘a source of fuel or energy for the body’ --> most people will give you the engineer's perspective of the world when they are asked =/= the marketers know that everything we buy has a deeper, emotional motivation behind it
innocuous purchase:
•pleasure-seeking
•status seeking
•identity-building benefit
•

ask anyone to give a definition of ‘clothes’ --> ‘textile materials that we use on our skin to provide protection from heat and cold’ =/= marketer will tell you that clothes are portals to different realities

*we don't buy bread --> we buy sustenance for the soul
*we don't buy lightbulbs --> we buy illumination
*we don't buy lipstick --> we buy dreams

****food is not fuel, but fashion****
that means:
•food is a psycho-social comfort blanket
•we use it to compete for status
•we use it to define boundaries between ‘us’ and ‘them’


obesogenic
obesity


‘superwicked’ problem (in social policy):
-those who are causing the problem are attempting to solve it [for example food marketing's power trying to solve obesity (~= putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank)]
-time is running out

(this is absolute bullshit -->) “we simply need more education to finally understand that X (for example junk food) is bad for us”


(Campbell:) fashion brands (with their 400% growth in the last 20 years) have intensified their campaign to change the perception of clothing: from a functional investment in practical shelter to a vital projection, extension and affirmation of one's very identity

(shift in manufacturing and delivering) *fast fashion* (spearheaded by the Italian design house Benetton, but perfected by fashion brands Zara, H&M and Forever 21) mimics luxury fashion trends at very low costs

increasing efficiencies in production ==> increasing inefficiencies in consumption

*psychological dissonance*: the uneasy feeling that your laptop, car, trainers or coffee machine is no longer ‘right’ [stimulated in two principal ways in marketing:]
-1- physical obsolescence (<== down-grading the quality of product)
-2- psychological obsolescence (<== acceleration of the ‘fashion cycle’: the social phenomenon whereby a design moves through bleeding edge to mainstream to despised mainstream)
-3- ***to make clothing (or any product) a vital prop that is needed to create authentic sense of who we are*** (<== protagonist: Chanel-clad Parisian on the rain-soaked cobbles of a Montmartre morning, the sweat-soaked Nikes of a determined athlete in an empty basketball court in the Bronx, etc. disseminated through Instagram, Pinterest and Tumblr. [--> this works together but in reverse in film industry the protagonists wearings and style are used to sell that specific identity who wears them])
}==> *every single person cares about the clothes they wear*
-4- *to re-categorize clothing* (perceptual categories are critical to marketers, for example tourism brands worked hard for decades to change the idea of a holiday abroad from the category of luxury to that of necessity, clothes have moved to the status of a coffee to grab and go) <== equivalencing: degraded quality of the garment allows a decrease in the price [==> powerful psychological effect compounded by the retailscape: shoes in are sold on rails like packets of sweets, T-shirts offered in basins at the check-out, etc.]

***advertising (images) = secular magic***
==inducing==> a powerful desire to indulge in the fantasy of being:
•a solitary and steely-gazed athlete
•a sophisticated and urbane Parisian girl
•

Campbell: “The moment that I say that fashion brands do not affect me is the very moment that they have”

pleasurable daydreaming innate to us all

marketing is often a practice of *breaking taboos* ==guarantees==> brand success

detergent, apparel, car or cosmetics brands ==produce==> the monolithic, repetitive idea of ‘clean flawlessness’ that infiltrates our value systems

clothes = portals to different realities

*enclothed cognition*: the influential way clothes change psychological mood, the way clothes allow us to take up certain social roles more authentically

Alessi: fashion is social (its Latin root ‘factio’: a group of people acting together) =/= Campbell: i use clothes (fashion) as a social grammar to communicate with these others

universal clothing in sci-fi is such a lie, because that would remove one of the primary ways in our culture that we have for expressing ourselves


we need to change the manifestation rather than deny the yearning }--> Campbell proposes: slow fashion, re-categorization of clothing back to investment in long-term, high-quality items

...................................

[title]
nonhuman rationality

(Meillassoux's) speculative realism ==> climate change = a new world (for which we do not have categories)

Meillassoux's concepts { nonhuman + rational --Campbell--> ontologically think about climate change =/= (despondency & passivity) equivocal status of climate change }==> bleak optimism: climate change has already happened + human civilization must learn how to die in a way that is a *creative and just foreclosure of the earth's organizational forms*


organization: an environment-making process
--> drawing of ‘general lines’ in the fabric of the whole ==constitute==> most basic mode of existence
--> making of some sort of cut in the universe to simultaneously create & order an inside from an outside [~ *bracket ‘a’ reality out from an undifferentiated plasmic whole* ~= framing]
==produce==> elements of a reality that can be controlled by human intervention

*how we frame climate change will determine the future of life on earth*
[--Sina--> that is why we need more curatorial skills: variational + organizational]


frame: strategic device, a mode of coping with the hugeness of reality (framing moves:)
1- bounding --> defining, separating, assimilating
2- stabilizing --> fixing, delimiting, controlling
3- bring into view --> empirical, technologies of representation, controlling

frame:
•useful models for viewing reality
•recursive lenses through which that phenomenon is measured and acted upon

climate change and new frames emerge side-by-side:
climate change as:
•externality
•superwicked problem
•anthropocene


**what if climate change is unframeable?** [<-- art is good at dealing with this]
climate change qualities:
•unboundedness: hard to separate what is climate change and what is not
•incalculability: intotalizable effects ==> emergencies and materialities that are beyond known forms of planning and organizing
•unthinkability: it escapes each time we try to capture it empirically, organizationally, psychologically

}--> *questions that have no logical or empirical answer ==> ontological* (they concern its ontology) ~ we do not see its fundamental being

end of empirical/logical = beginning of ontological (secular)
                                           =/=
end of empirical/logical =? beginning of eschatological (nonsecular)


}--Campbell--> **ontologization of climate change**
*climate change = the world we live in =/= a problem within the world*

[*]climate change: the absolute context that determines what is possible + what has replaced a previous world
(i find Meillassoux + Campbell argumentation more convincing than Morton's hyperobject)


climate change as “problem” (that can be framed), “thing”, “within the world” [=/= the world: generative context from where problems emerge ==> forms of organization without precedent] ==problem==>
1. epistemological assumptions (+ expectations + responses)
2. unable to encompass (the qualities of climate change)
3. misrecognition of climate change


speculative reali[...]