THE REBEL SELL: HOW THE COUNTER CULTURE BECAME CONSUMER CULTURE PDF, EPUB, EBOOK

Joseph Heath,Andrew Potter | 376 pages | 17 Feb 2006 | John Wiley and Sons Ltd | 9781841126555 | English | Oxford, United Kingdom The Rebel Sell: How The Counter Culture Became Consumer Culture -

The authors write in short, conversational paragraphs but their best sentences can be artfully stinging. The obsession of modern marketing with coolness and youth is memorably dismissed as "the society-wide triumph of the logic of high school". Some of the themes here are not completely new, though. The US cultural critic Thomas Frank whom the authors acknowledge as a big influence wrote extensively in the 90s about the links between modern bohemianism and business. But Heath and Potter go further by suggesting that there has never even been any tension between the two sides: their interests have always been compatible. To demonstrate this, they supply an ambitiously brief version of the history of capitalism. In the beginning, it was a system concerned with selling people things they needed. But once those needs had been largely satisfied, in rich countries at least, capitalism became about selling things that would make people feel distinctive. In the late 19th century, the sociologist Thorstein Veblen coined the phrase "conspicuous consumption" to describe the never-ending competition for prestigious lifestyles and possessions that was set in motion. Anti-capitalists, in Heath and Potter's view, have long failed to understand this development. They have mistakenly seen capitalism as a system that sells conformity rather than individualism. And so they have failed to spot something important: that the counterculture of the 60s and its successors have simply been examples of prosperous westerners seeking social distinctiveness, as Veblen predicted. From hippies to punks, from organic farmers to ravers, rebellious subcultures are always entrepreneurial - both in their daily activities and in their overriding concern to set themselves apart in the great modern marketplace of tastes and styles. And all the debate and worry about "selling out" that has attended the growth of such groups, the authors argue, has been a way of avoiding an uncomfortable truth: that everyone involved was instinctively capitalist long before the corporate sponsors came calling. Anti-capitalism of the attractively packaged No Logo variety, The Rebel Sell concludes tartly, is just the latest of these worldly subcultures, outwardly iconoclastic but actually status-seeking and snobbish. The authors are not above spicing their dense arguments with some easy point- scoring: "Whenever you look at the list of consumer goods that [according to critics of capitalism] people don't really need, what you invariably see is a list of consumer goods that middle-aged intellectuals don't need Hollywood movies bad, performance art good; Chryslers bad, Volvos good; hamburgers bad, risotto good. In the rare moments when Heath and Potter are not in attack mode, they describe their own political beliefs in orthodox left-leaning terms. Still, it would be a shame if the book's ramblings kept it from getting read. At the very least, it puts its finger on a trend: there will be plenty of future critics of capitalism lining up for their free-range chicken. Reuse this content The Trust Project. More from Unknown Jobs at The Economist intern. The idea of a counterculture — that is, a world outside of the consumer dominated one that encompasses us — pervades everything from the anti—globalisation movement to feminism and environmentalism. Heath and Potter offer a startlingly clear picture of what a concern for social justice might look like without the confusion of the countercultural obsession with being different. We request your telephone number so we can contact you in the event we have difficulty reaching you via email. We aim to respond to all questions on the same business day. Part I. The selling of the counterculture | Unknown | The Economist

But do vocal opponents of the status quo offer us a real political alternative? Joseph Heath and Andrew Potter shatter the central myth of radical political, economic and cultural thinking. The idea of a counterculture — that is, a world outside of the consumer dominated one that encompasses us — pervades everything from the anti—globalisation movement to feminism and environmentalism. Heath and Potter offer a startlingly clear picture of what a concern for social justice might look like without the confusion of the countercultural obsession with being different. We request your telephone number so we can contact you in the event we have difficulty reaching you via email. Post a comment. Sunday, May 25, The Rebel Sell and counter-cultural myths. Through Adbusters, the Estonian-born Lasn has been one of the most strident critics of capitalism in the last decade. The idea comes from radio jamming: where public frequencies are pirated and subverted to either enable independent communication, or disrupt dominant frequencies. It is their thesis that counter-culture is actually counter-productive and instead of destroying consumer society it is the key ingredient in creating it. Although Lasn says his product will not be made by sweat shop labour, Heath and Potter says the enterprise does not represent a threat to the capitalist system. They say it is a business model that has already been successfully exploited by the likes of Starbucks and The Body Shop. According to Heath and Potter, culture jammers are the latest in a long line of countercultural rebels who have been unsuccessfully trying to foment consumer revolt for over forty years. Heath and Potter say this is not a sell out but a natural progression. For its first pages, The Rebel Sell makes a very compelling argument that the counter-culture has got it completely wrong. They say that counter-culture provides entertainment for the rebels, but not much else. Reuse this content The Trust Project. More from Unknown Jobs at The Economist intern. Jobs at The Economist Job listing: News intern. The best of our journalism, hand-picked each day Sign up to our free daily newsletter, The Economist today Sign up now. The Rebel Sell: How The Counter Culture Became Consumer Culture | Wiley

Post a comment. Sunday, May 25, The Rebel Sell and counter-cultural myths. Through Adbusters, the Estonian-born Lasn has been one of the most strident critics of capitalism in the last decade. The idea comes from radio jamming: where public frequencies are pirated and subverted to either enable independent communication, or disrupt dominant frequencies. It is their thesis that counter-culture is actually counter-productive and instead of destroying consumer society it is the key ingredient in creating it. Although Lasn says his product will not be made by sweat shop labour, Heath and Potter says the enterprise does not represent a threat to the capitalist system. They say it is a business model that has already been successfully exploited by the likes of Starbucks and The Body Shop. According to Heath and Potter, culture jammers are the latest in a long line of countercultural rebels who have been unsuccessfully trying to foment consumer revolt for over forty years. Heath and Potter say this is not a sell out but a natural progression. For its first pages, The Rebel Sell makes a very compelling argument that the counter-culture has got it completely wrong. They say that counter-culture provides entertainment for the rebels, but not much else. The idea of a counterculture -- a world outside of the consumer-dominated world that encompasses us -- pervades everything from the antiglobalization movement to feminism an In this wide-ranging and perceptive work of cultural criticism, Joseph Heath and Andrew Potter shatter the most important myth that dominates much of radical political, economic, and cultural thinking. The idea of a counterculture -- a world outside of the consumer-dominated world that encompasses us -- pervades everything from the antiglobalization movement to feminism and environmentalism. And the idea that mocking or simply hoping the "system" will collapse, the authors argue, is not only counterproductive but has helped to create the very consumer society radicals oppose. In a lively blend of pop culture, history, and philosophical analysis, Heath and Potter offer a startlingly clear picture of what a concern for social justice might look like without the confusion of the counterculture obsession with being different. Get A Copy. Paperback , pages. Published December 14th by Harper Business first published January 1st More Details Original Title. Other Editions Friend Reviews. To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up. To ask other readers questions about Nation of Rebels , please sign up. Lists with This Book. Community Reviews. Showing Average rating 3. Rating details. More filters. Sort order. Jan 08, Cate rated it really liked it Recommends it for: anyone currently or formerly involved in "counterculture" movements. From the time I was about 15 I began wondering why the fashion styles of various counterculture movements seemed to be absorbed by the mainstream okay, so really I was pissed that the same kid that made fun of me two years before for wearing this or that was now wearing this or that item, only now it was considered "cool". I later came to the conclusion that most people involved in the counterculture do--the styles had been co-opted by corporate marketing schemes. Turns out I, along with the r From the time I was about 15 I began wondering why the fashion styles of various counterculture movements seemed to be absorbed by the mainstream okay, so really I was pissed that the same kid that made fun of me two years before for wearing this or that was now wearing this or that item, only now it was considered "cool". Turns out I, along with the rest of the counterculture, was wrong. Heath and Potter argue that counterculture hasn't been co-opted by consumer culture, but rather that counterculture is consumer culture. In other words, there is nothing to sell out because the whole ideology of the counterculutre is false. The highly idividualistic nature of the counterculture i. Individualism, or distinction, can be equated with "scarcity" in economic terms. The more distinct or scarce a trend is, the more status it gives the individual. This explains why former enthusiasts of Green Day suddenly turned on the band when they signed with a major label--listening to the band had decreased in distinction--it no longer set the individual apart from their peers, in short, it became "uncool. Instead of working towards gradual reform through democratic processes i. In my opinion the book is right on. Unfortunately I don't think that counterculture movement is on the way out, due to one fact that Heath and Potter make a point of--its just way more fun to overthrow the system i. Despite agreeing with nearly all of the main points in this book, "Rebel Sell" was a lousy read. Heath and Potter's arguments are poor and often backed up with little more than assertions, such that even when the reader can see that they are correct about something, one is annoyed by their intellectual dishonesty and flimsy rhetoric. D Despite agreeing with nearly all of the main points in this book, "Rebel Sell" was a lousy read. Do they weigh the relative evidence for each theory? Do they counter Gladwell with their own arguments? Another example of the author's sloppy logic occurs in the discussion of the politics surrounding the counterculture's response to uniform, in which they write this howler: "Given the martial archetype, it is hardly surprising that uniforms-and the men and women who wear them - are treated with tremendous scorn and hostility by cultural rebels Throw in the fact that most people in uniforms are agents of government-sanctioned violence or coercion and it is easy to see why the decision to wear a uniform was seen not only as an unappealing lifestyle choice, but as manifestly dangerous. It was inevitable, then, that the Vietnam War served as a lightening rod for countercultural protest". That's right, folks, get ready to re-write your history books, the opposition to the Vietnam War was REALLY due to the fact that the people fighting it wore uniforms. More importantly, to say that the authors paint in broad strokes as they admit in the afterword is a gross understatement. Every single person or organization who has ever complained about "the system" in any context is lumped together. Well, this isn't exactly true. One of Heath and Potter's assumptions is that the counterculture is completely ineffective, and so anyone who successfully changed the system is by definition not part of the counterculture. Circular reasoning aside, the notion that Martin Luther King was not a revolutionary is outright laughable. The authors assert that the counterculture wants nothing but a total overhaul of the system, and that in this they have been completely ineffective. But they go on to claim that the counterculture has been ineffective in fostering any change, and that it is in fact counterproductive. There is no hard evidence offered for this belief. In fact, they do point out the enormous social changes that have taken place since the 60's. The book also feels completely out of order; major concepts are defined hundreds of pages after they have been discussed in detail. For example, the authors are exceptionally vague about the nature, extent, and description of the counterculture. There are plenty of examples here and there, but over a hundred pages into the book there is no coherent description of the target of the authors' polemic. We are left wondering is they are setting up a strawman? Lots of works are cited that are supposedly representative of the counterculture, but we're still left with the sense that the counterculture has something to do with hippies, punks, Adbusters, and Naomi Klein and, apparently, the entire political left. The best parts of the book, by far, are the conclusion in which they clearly state what they have been hinting at for the previous pages and the afterword in which they defend their conclusions from selected criticisms. This fact makes something startlingly clear; this book is little more than a 25 page article padded with hundreds of page of more or less supporting facts and arguments. The first ten chapters really add very little to their argument, while the authors' snarky tone and dismissive attitude could put off more than a few readers who could otherwise approve of much of their central thesis. The Rebel Sell sparked interest up here mainly because of the shots the pair took at Naomi Klein, in particular ridiculing her complaint in No Logo about the hipster wannabes who had invaded her slickly grungy Slavic neighborhood to the point that the original cool kids wanted to pick up their studio lofts and go sulk. This episode was just one of several that the authors—who display a marked affinity for using Hobbes as a preferred analyst of societal problems over that twentieth century wunderkind, Marx—used to reinforce their central contention: that all of the hand-waving and utopian shenanigans and jamming that the counter-culture engages in have only ever served to produce the paradoxical effect of reinforcing the consumer culture that they desperately wish to overturn. The stark reality, say the duo in their placid but relentless tone, is that these counter- culture groups have merely become another player in globalized capitalism, finding a niche market and setting up the infrastructure to enable its exploitation and keep the almighty dollar on the move. Indeed, Heath and Potter turn the screws of mild sarcasm in order to point out how—seeing the ineffectiveness of the left's perennial dream of a revolution that will topple the hated marketplace and its political minions—it would be more productive for them to join in the working of the long- established political system currently in place; that incremental changes and patient legislation and careful opinion swaying has always produced the most palpable achievements in working towards a more just, more equitable, and more environmentally aware society. In a way, the then young authors are modern-day followers in the footsteps of Raymond Aron, upholding the necessity of rationally approaching the cultural and political problems at hand and striving to operate within the existing framework in order to implement one's goals while pointing out the destructive futility of revolutionary idealism. It's all remarkably sensible, orderly, and reasonable—thoroughly Canadian —at heart, and thus something innately persuasive to like-minded thinkers. Whether it will appeal to those whom the authors wish to sway—members of the progressive left—is a more debatable question. Certainly, the mocking tone and dismissal of the culture-jammers will likely turn many of the latter away before the meaty part of the book has been reached. I found it to be enjoyable and educational while written in a workmanlike fashion— neither brilliant nor boring, but one that unfolds in a continually interesting and thoughtful manner. It's not perfect—there are mistakes, straw-men and questionable interpretations to be found within—but then neither are the societies they are suggesting we endeavor within. Perfection may sell well on the counter-cultural market, but it has so far proved impossible to attain in man or his institutions. View 2 comments. May 30, Douglas Wilson rated it it was amazing Shelves: culture-studies. Though written from the left, this book was really intelligent and shrewd. Really enjoyed it. If you have read Thomas Frank, it was a lot like that. Jul 02, Nicole rated it really liked it. Awhile ago I saw a postcard on a wall at Loyola for an upcoming lecture about the evils of marketing. Someone had written on the card, "this postcard is marketing. So when this book started out with a story about Adbusters putting out a shoe called "Blackspot" that was supposed to be an anti-brand answer to Nike, Adidas, etc. I've always found everything about Adbusters to be ironic. Counterculture will always find its way into mainstream culture, even drive it. This book takes a long look at the history of counterculture movements and how entrenched they actually are in the bigger consumer picture. I always think of this book when I hear someone rail against a band "selling out. Also excellent: their discussion of why "Buy Nothing Day" is actually ineffective in the bigger economic picture, and why "Earn Less Day" would make more sense for what they are trying to achieve but probably not go over as well. View 1 comment. The authors make many good points, but they also either misunderstand or dishonestly misrepresent a lot of the cultural politics they are mocking. Jun 27, David rated it liked it. What I found most interesting and compelling--the incorporation of theorizing about collective action, Veblen's unfortunately neglected argument about conspicuous consumption and the like--actually seemed quite sobering upon reading the book. I knew what the authors were arguing yet their presentation of the ideas, perhaps because of their "one-sided" character as some complainers out As an extension of Thomas Frank's thesis in The Conquest of Cool, I think that Nation of Rebels has its merits. I knew what the authors were arguing yet their presentation of the ideas, perhaps because of their "one-sided" character as some complainers out there have put the matter , seemed to push me out of an intellectual torpor. What so many reviewers seem to not even mention is that the thesis of the book that there really is no such thing as a "counterculture" these days, or that the notions, ideologies, and practices of any "counterculture" today are actually not oppositional to the interests of capital is something worth thinking about very, very carefully. What sorts of resistance, if that is what one should do, are effective? The forms of aesthetic protest that seem to characterize the various sub- and countercultures of the last 40 years have, they claim, not produced the substantive , wide-spread socio-economic changes desired by the selfsame counterculture. This is not because of a rapacious capitalist economy that empties these seemingly radical gestures of their critical content in other words, because people "sell out" but rather because the very form of the protest was unable to accommodate critical content to begin with. In other words, the "lifestyle" choices often highly aestheticized and supposedly critical art-objects that were produced in order to promote revolution, were never antithetical to the interests of capital, but were rather expressions of its very spirit. Of the many shortcomings of the book, what I most wonder about is the tendency to think of social change within what seem to be merely socio- economic terms. Granted, capitalism does seem to be the "ultimate horizon" of any cultural and social forms in the modernized, Western world these days, and opposition to it does seem as if it could provide a common ground for a variety of social movements thus cutting across the supposedly incommensurable differences between these very groups. However, I wonder if the the thesis put forward by Heath is too dependent on a specific understanding or goal of social resistance. Heath's rejection of the totalizing theories of mass society, whether they be from the Frankfurt School down to Foucault seems as if it would leave room for small gestures of resistance. Yet no mention of such effective forms of resistance is mentioned, as far as I can remember. Anyhow, now that I've bloviated for some length now, I think I'll get back to reading and thinking. General Summary "The Rebel Sell" is a book written by left-wing authors who are very much 'progressive change through legislation' advocates, and who are very much against the entire concept of the counterculture. The authors argue that there is no 'system' or vast international conspiracy, and the idea of counterculture is one which acts contrary to the true needs of society. In effect, they posit that counterculture rebels thwart progressive change by shifting focus in the wrong direction. Moreover, they posit that capitalism is not inherently evil, nor are markets; that the counterculture's push for individuality and its anti-conformist attitude has actually spurred consumerism and gross capitalism like never before in human history, and that the entire movement is based on the flawed ideas of Freud, Marx, and others, as well as a deeply ingrained fear created by the existence of Nazi Germany. The authors claim that virtually all problems attacked by counterculturalists as 'mass society' problems, are actually collective action problems, which can only be solved by 'arms control agreements' in the form of regulation, taxation or other legislative methods. This contrasts with various counterculture responses, including rebellion, individualistic consumer spending which doesn't account for the existence of positional goods positional goods are things such as 'cool,' 'good taste,' and living in choice neighbourhoods , not voting, destruction of property and so on. Also integral to the authors' arguments: they propose that western society is not one of pressured conformity, but instead one of hyper individuality and competitive consumption. The authors have, as their ideal and guiding focus for the book, a positive potential market reality achieved through legislation, which encompasses part of the following: "There would be no monopolies, no barriers to entry in any industry. There would be no advertising; competition would be based entirely upon the price and quality of goods being offered. There would be no information asymmetries -- consumers would be perfectly informed about what they were buying. Firms would not behave opportunistically toward their customers or suppliers, and there would be no windfall profits. And, most importantly, all externalities would be internalized; firms would have to factor the full social cost of their actions into every decision made. They explain why suburbs look the way they do in excellent fashion as well. Likewise, they discount obvious links between big pharma manufacturing both cancer drugs and things which cause cancer. Not to say that the countercultural solution is the only answer to these problems, but that the authors simply failed to cover these important topics and explain how legislation could fix these collective action problems in detail. Do people not competitively consume in order to conform to minimum societal standards? Society may not be forcing you to conform through a vast repressive conspiracy, but how many 'counterculturalists' actually believe that anyway? Not addressed fully. The authors lose the reader in a maze of hearsay, conjecture, rambling and point-hopping and they have professional editors! As much as I wanted to throw it at the wall occasionally, and as quick as I was to point out its numerous flaws, scribbling madly in the margins, the authors, more-often-than-not, made excellent points, and, as with another Joseph Heath book I read "Filthy Lucre: Economics for People who Hate Capitalism" , I am now forced to re-structure my personal politics and beliefs. This goes to show that, while the book and the arguments made therein are far from flawless, they really made me THINK, which is incredibly important in today's world of non-fiction left-wing books which consistently preach to the choir and fail to reflect or challenge left wing or progressive politics. Most books do not look at the history of counterculture and ask: Why hasn't rebelling worked? Will it ever? Description This is an explosive rejection of the myth of the counter culture in the most provocative book since "No Logo". In this wide-ranging and perceptive work of cultural criticism, Joseph Heath and Andrew Potter shatter the central myth of radical political, economic and cultural thinking. The idea of a counter culture - that is, a world outside of the consumer dominated one that encompasses us - pervades everything from the anti- globalisation movement to feminism and environmentalism. And the idea that mocking the system, or trying to 'jam' it so it will collapse, they argue, is not only counter productive but has helped to create the very consumer society that radicals oppose. In a lively blend of pop culture, history and philosophical analysis, Heath and Potter offer a startlingly clear picture of what a concern for social justice might look like without the confusion of the counter culture obsession with being different. Auflage Illustrations note ports. Table of contents Acknowledgments. Part I. Part II. Review Text In a lively blend of pop culture history, political manifesto, and investigative analysis, The Rebel Sell examines the birth of the rebel consumer. Asserting that the counterculture is not against consumerism, but is one of the main driving forces of consumerism, this destined-to-be controversial book examines the history of the rebel sell- from the first rebranding of the Volkswagen to the lifestyle statement of the hippies. Rating details. Book ratings by Goodreads. Goodreads is the world's largest site for readers with over 50 million reviews. We're featuring millions of their reader ratings on our book pages to help you find your new favourite book.

Woolly Days: The Rebel Sell and counter-cultural myths

Anticipating criticism, perhaps, Messrs Heath and Potter make sure to put forth a few of their own solutions, such as the hour working week and school uniforms to keep teenagers from competing with each other to wear ever-more-expensive clothes. Imposing some restrictions, such as a shorter working week, might not stop the arms race, but it would at least curb its most offensive excesses. This assumes one finds excess consumption offensive; even the authors do not seem entirely sure. But en route to such modest suggestions, the authors want to criticise every aspect of the counterculture, from its disdain for homogenisation, franchises and brands to its political offshoots. Moreover, the authors make the mistake of assuming that the consumers they sympathise with—the ones who buy brands and live in tract houses—know enough to separate themselves from their purchases, whereas the free-trade-coffee buyers swallow the brand messages whole, as it were. Still, it would be a shame if the book's ramblings kept it from getting read. At the very least, it puts its finger on a trend: there will be plenty of future critics of capitalism lining up for their free-range chicken. I later came to the conclusion that most people involved in the counterculture do--the styles had been co-opted by corporate marketing schemes. Turns out I, along with the r From the time I was about 15 I began wondering why the fashion styles of various counterculture movements seemed to be absorbed by the mainstream okay, so really I was pissed that the same kid that made fun of me two years before for wearing this or that was now wearing this or that item, only now it was considered "cool". Turns out I, along with the rest of the counterculture, was wrong. Heath and Potter argue that counterculture hasn't been co-opted by consumer culture, but rather that counterculture is consumer culture. In other words, there is nothing to sell out because the whole ideology of the counterculutre is false. The highly idividualistic nature of the counterculture i. Individualism, or distinction, can be equated with "scarcity" in economic terms. The more distinct or scarce a trend is, the more status it gives the individual. This explains why former enthusiasts of Green Day suddenly turned on the band when they signed with a major label--listening to the band had decreased in distinction--it no longer set the individual apart from their peers, in short, it became "uncool. Instead of working towards gradual reform through democratic processes i. In my opinion the book is right on. Unfortunately I don't think that counterculture movement is on the way out, due to one fact that Heath and Potter make a point of--its just way more fun to overthrow the system i. Despite agreeing with nearly all of the main points in this book, "Rebel Sell" was a lousy read. Heath and Potter's arguments are poor and often backed up with little more than assertions, such that even when the reader can see that they are correct about something, one is annoyed by their intellectual dishonesty and flimsy rhetoric. D Despite agreeing with nearly all of the main points in this book, "Rebel Sell" was a lousy read. Do they weigh the relative evidence for each theory? Do they counter Gladwell with their own arguments? Another example of the author's sloppy logic occurs in the discussion of the politics surrounding the counterculture's response to uniform, in which they write this howler: "Given the martial archetype, it is hardly surprising that uniforms-and the men and women who wear them - are treated with tremendous scorn and hostility by cultural rebels Throw in the fact that most people in uniforms are agents of government-sanctioned violence or coercion and it is easy to see why the decision to wear a uniform was seen not only as an unappealing lifestyle choice, but as manifestly dangerous. It was inevitable, then, that the Vietnam War served as a lightening rod for countercultural protest". That's right, folks, get ready to re-write your history books, the opposition to the Vietnam War was REALLY due to the fact that the people fighting it wore uniforms. More importantly, to say that the authors paint in broad strokes as they admit in the afterword is a gross understatement. Every single person or organization who has ever complained about "the system" in any context is lumped together. Well, this isn't exactly true. One of Heath and Potter's assumptions is that the counterculture is completely ineffective, and so anyone who successfully changed the system is by definition not part of the counterculture. Circular reasoning aside, the notion that Martin Luther King was not a revolutionary is outright laughable. The authors assert that the counterculture wants nothing but a total overhaul of the system, and that in this they have been completely ineffective. But they go on to claim that the counterculture has been ineffective in fostering any change, and that it is in fact counterproductive. There is no hard evidence offered for this belief. In fact, they do point out the enormous social changes that have taken place since the 60's. The book also feels completely out of order; major concepts are defined hundreds of pages after they have been discussed in detail. For example, the authors are exceptionally vague about the nature, extent, and description of the counterculture. There are plenty of examples here and there, but over a hundred pages into the book there is no coherent description of the target of the authors' polemic. We are left wondering is they are setting up a strawman? Lots of works are cited that are supposedly representative of the counterculture, but we're still left with the sense that the counterculture has something to do with hippies, punks, Adbusters, and Naomi Klein and, apparently, the entire political left. The best parts of the book, by far, are the conclusion in which they clearly state what they have been hinting at for the previous pages and the afterword in which they defend their conclusions from selected criticisms. This fact makes something startlingly clear; this book is little more than a 25 page article padded with hundreds of page of more or less supporting facts and arguments. The first ten chapters really add very little to their argument, while the authors' snarky tone and dismissive attitude could put off more than a few readers who could otherwise approve of much of their central thesis. The Rebel Sell sparked interest up here mainly because of the shots the pair took at Naomi Klein, in particular ridiculing her complaint in No Logo about the hipster wannabes who had invaded her slickly grungy Slavic neighborhood to the point that the original cool kids wanted to pick up their studio lofts and go sulk. This episode was just one of several that the authors—who display a marked affinity for using Hobbes as a preferred analyst of societal problems over that twentieth century wunderkind, Marx—used to reinforce their central contention: that all of the hand-waving and utopian shenanigans and jamming that the counter-culture engages in have only ever served to produce the paradoxical effect of reinforcing the consumer culture that they desperately wish to overturn. The stark reality, say the duo in their placid but relentless tone, is that these counter-culture groups have merely become another player in globalized capitalism, finding a niche market and setting up the infrastructure to enable its exploitation and keep the almighty dollar on the move. Indeed, Heath and Potter turn the screws of mild sarcasm in order to point out how—seeing the ineffectiveness of the left's perennial dream of a revolution that will topple the hated marketplace and its political minions—it would be more productive for them to join in the working of the long- established political system currently in place; that incremental changes and patient legislation and careful opinion swaying has always produced the most palpable achievements in working towards a more just, more equitable, and more environmentally aware society. In a way, the then young authors are modern-day followers in the footsteps of Raymond Aron, upholding the necessity of rationally approaching the cultural and political problems at hand and striving to operate within the existing framework in order to implement one's goals while pointing out the destructive futility of revolutionary idealism. It's all remarkably sensible, orderly, and reasonable—thoroughly Canadian —at heart, and thus something innately persuasive to like-minded thinkers. Whether it will appeal to those whom the authors wish to sway—members of the progressive left—is a more debatable question. Certainly, the mocking tone and dismissal of the culture-jammers will likely turn many of the latter away before the meaty part of the book has been reached. I found it to be enjoyable and educational while written in a workmanlike fashion—neither brilliant nor boring, but one that unfolds in a continually interesting and thoughtful manner. It's not perfect—there are mistakes, straw-men and questionable interpretations to be found within—but then neither are the societies they are suggesting we endeavor within. Perfection may sell well on the counter-cultural market, but it has so far proved impossible to attain in man or his institutions. View 2 comments. May 30, Douglas Wilson rated it it was amazing Shelves: culture-studies. Though written from the left, this book was really intelligent and shrewd. Really enjoyed it. If you have read Thomas Frank, it was a lot like that. Jul 02, Nicole rated it really liked it. Awhile ago I saw a postcard on a wall at Loyola for an upcoming lecture about the evils of marketing. Someone had written on the card, "this postcard is marketing. So when this book started out with a story about Adbusters putting out a shoe called "Blackspot" that was supposed to be an anti-brand answer to Nike, Adidas, etc. I've always found everything about Adbusters to be ironic. Counterculture will always find its way into mainstream culture, even drive it. This book takes a long look at the history of counterculture movements and how entrenched they actually are in the bigger consumer picture. I always think of this book when I hear someone rail against a band "selling out. Also excellent: their discussion of why "Buy Nothing Day" is actually ineffective in the bigger economic picture, and why "Earn Less Day" would make more sense for what they are trying to achieve but probably not go over as well. View 1 comment. The authors make many good points, but they also either misunderstand or dishonestly misrepresent a lot of the cultural politics they are mocking. Jun 27, David rated it liked it. What I found most interesting and compelling--the incorporation of theorizing about collective action, Veblen's unfortunately neglected argument about conspicuous consumption and the like--actually seemed quite sobering upon reading the book. I knew what the authors were arguing yet their presentation of the ideas, perhaps because of their "one-sided" character as some complainers out As an extension of Thomas Frank's thesis in The Conquest of Cool, I think that Nation of Rebels has its merits. I knew what the authors were arguing yet their presentation of the ideas, perhaps because of their "one-sided" character as some complainers out there have put the matter , seemed to push me out of an intellectual torpor. What so many reviewers seem to not even mention is that the thesis of the book that there really is no such thing as a "counterculture" these days, or that the notions, ideologies, and practices of any "counterculture" today are actually not oppositional to the interests of capital is something worth thinking about very, very carefully. What sorts of resistance, if that is what one should do, are effective? The forms of aesthetic protest that seem to characterize the various sub- and countercultures of the last 40 years have, they claim, not produced the substantive , wide-spread socio-economic changes desired by the selfsame counterculture. This is not because of a rapacious capitalist economy that empties these seemingly radical gestures of their critical content in other words, because people "sell out" but rather because the very form of the protest was unable to accommodate critical content to begin with. In other words, the "lifestyle" choices often highly aestheticized and supposedly critical art-objects that were produced in order to promote revolution, were never antithetical to the interests of capital, but were rather expressions of its very spirit. Of the many shortcomings of the book, what I most wonder about is the tendency to think of social change within what seem to be merely socio-economic terms. Granted, capitalism does seem to be the "ultimate horizon" of any cultural and social forms in the modernized, Western world these days, and opposition to it does seem as if it could provide a common ground for a variety of social movements thus cutting across the supposedly incommensurable differences between these very groups. However, I wonder if the the thesis put forward by Heath is too dependent on a specific understanding or goal of social resistance. Heath's rejection of the totalizing theories of mass society, whether they be from the Frankfurt School down to Foucault seems as if it would leave room for small gestures of resistance. Yet no mention of such effective forms of resistance is mentioned, as far as I can remember. Anyhow, now that I've bloviated for some length now, I think I'll get back to reading and thinking. General Summary "The Rebel Sell" is a book written by left-wing authors who are very much 'progressive change through legislation' advocates, and who are very much against the entire concept of the counterculture. The authors argue that there is no 'system' or vast international conspiracy, and the idea of counterculture is one which acts contrary to the true needs of society. In effect, they posit that counterculture rebels thwart progressive change by shifting focus in the wrong direction. Moreover, they posit that capitalism is not inherently evil, nor are markets; that the counterculture's push for individuality and its anti-conformist attitude has actually spurred consumerism and gross capitalism like never before in human history, and that the entire movement is based on the flawed ideas of Freud, Marx, and others, as well as a deeply ingrained fear created by the existence of Nazi Germany. The authors claim that virtually all problems attacked by counterculturalists as 'mass society' problems, are actually collective action problems, which can only be solved by 'arms control agreements' in the form of regulation, taxation or other legislative methods. This contrasts with various counterculture responses, including rebellion, individualistic consumer spending which doesn't account for the existence of positional goods positional goods are things such as 'cool,' 'good taste,' and living in choice neighbourhoods , not voting, destruction of property and so on. Also integral to the authors' arguments: they propose that western society is not one of pressured conformity, but instead one of hyper individuality and competitive consumption. The authors have, as their ideal and guiding focus for the book, a positive potential market reality achieved through legislation, which encompasses part of the following: "There would be no monopolies, no barriers to entry in any industry. There would be no advertising; competition would be based entirely upon the price and quality of goods being offered. There would be no information asymmetries -- consumers would be perfectly informed about what they were buying. Firms would not behave opportunistically toward their customers or suppliers, and there would be no windfall profits. And, most importantly, all externalities would be internalized; firms would have to factor the full social cost of their actions into every decision made. They explain why suburbs look the way they do in excellent fashion as well. Likewise, they discount obvious links between big pharma manufacturing both cancer drugs and things which cause cancer. Not to say that the countercultural solution is the only answer to these problems, but that the authors simply failed to cover these important topics and explain how legislation could fix these collective action problems in detail. Do people not competitively consume in order to conform to minimum societal standards? Society may not be forcing you to conform through a vast repressive conspiracy, but how many 'counterculturalists' actually believe that anyway? Not addressed fully. The authors lose the reader in a maze of hearsay, conjecture, rambling and point-hopping and they have professional editors! As much as I wanted to throw it at the wall occasionally, and as quick as I was to point out its numerous flaws, scribbling madly in the margins, the authors, more-often- than-not, made excellent points, and, as with another Joseph Heath book I read "Filthy Lucre: Economics for People who Hate Capitalism" , I am now forced to re-structure my personal politics and beliefs. This goes to show that, while the book and the arguments made therein are far from flawless, they really made me THINK, which is incredibly important in today's world of non-fiction left-wing books which consistently preach to the choir and fail to reflect or challenge left wing or progressive politics. Most books do not look at the history of counterculture and ask: Why hasn't rebelling worked? Will it ever? What is our reality based on and what are some proven, effective, albeit slow, strategies for positive change? This book does. Key Questions: What if everyone in society went to university and had free access to excellent education, whatever that is? Would the world be a better place? Would you have a job? Would people be happier? Chapter 2: Freud Goes to California Freud's theories discussed, particularly in relation to repression. The authors present his theories in detail, in order to dismiss them later on. They do, however, agree with aspects of his theories, such as his theory of humor because no one has advanced a better one. I have to agree with aspects of his theories as well. Authors demonstrate ignorance in terms of hallucinogenic drugs, and don't seem to think having fun and freedom are worth fighting for; while pointing out the hollow reasons many protesters have to protest eg. Chapter 3: Being Normal Similarities and differences in right and left- wing ideologies, defence of coercion, introduction of game theory and collective action problems, organized crime as an 'arms control agreement' to solve the prisoners' dilemma for criminals, civil disobediance vs deviance, Hobbes vs Freud, no trust without rules, military arms races, symbolic cultural rules, 'not everyone thinks the same way you do,' co-optation vs adaptation, counterculturalists reject workable solutions in favour of 'deeper' solutions which never happen. Chapter 4: I Hate Myself and I want to Buy "The critique of mass society has been one of the most powerful forces driving consumerism for the past fourty years," "whenever you look at the list of consumer goods that people don't really need, what you invariably see is a list of consumer goods that middle-aged intellectuals don't need. Budweiser bad. Chapter 5: Extreme Rebellion The unabomber and others, deviance vs dissent in Black culture, attack on "Bowling for Columbine," Foucault and confinement, subversiveness, organic food elitism, critique of downshifting which I, in turn, critique. Chapter 6: Uniforms and Uniformity Star Trek, the military, strong defense of school uniforms and attack on fashion culture, Ivan Illich, vs Alissa Quart; a stumbling chapter with a great conclusion. Chapter 8: Coca-Colonization The birth of suburban housing and why they all look the same, network externalities and social contexts eg many people bought fax machines because each fax machine needed another to communicate, etc. If the answer is yes, then you should be prepared to pay more," the pros of franchises and chains and the difference between them and pros of uniformity , language uniformity, Globalization: stop protesting trade itself and challenge individual problems instead. Chapter 9: Thank You, India The lure of the exotic and the other in society and countercultural thinking, escapism, strange attack on the voluntary simplicity movement and discussion of religion and spirituality, the percieved countercultural view vs reality of Eastern and Western cultures, Asia's hyper, guilt-free consumerism; stupid 'mother earth' argument, countercultural rebels as the shock troops of mass tourism, championing business travel, vs alternative health treatments and supplements. Hard-hitting chapter with great points and serious omissions. Chapter Spaceship Earth On technology: debate, freedom vs enslavement, hypocrisy of countercultural protestors with ipods etc. Great conclusion, terrible chapter. Why can't environmentalists advocate for both deep and shallow change?? Chapter Conclusion Good summation, bad attack on participatory democracy which again ignores the ability of small-scale and large-scale politics to function simultaneously, ridiculous denial of environmental regulations "being weakened by pressures emanating from global competition," unless they do not state but mean that they are weakened by individual and corporate greed; I completely agree that those 'on the left' must continue to strive for positive political change, such as by fighting Harper through postive campaigns and voting for the Green Party federally. Apr 21, Travis Ammons rated it it was amazing Shelves: favorite-authors , brilliance-beyond-brain-s-brutal-bo , buy , u-must-read , erica-keener , sociology. This book is truly an eye-opener. A perceptive work of modern day cultural criticism that rips apart the myths that dominate with false truths you are quick to learn much of the radical political, economical, and cultural ways of thinking. The very idea of counterculture And the idea that mocking or bucking the system--the very backbone of the counterculture ethic--we must finally see, this brilliant book informs us through very intellectual pleading, is basically the most ignorant and spot-on labeling a society has ever done. As did our parents and our grandparents. And for some of your reading this, so did our great-grandparents. This should be a clue or a sign. What the fuck are we really rebelling against if we've been rebelling against if for four generations maybe we're really not that 'underground' after all. Blending philosophy with historical analysis and pop culture they bring a fresh look at an old problem with social justice. They make clear that rthe confusion of the counterculture mindset doesn't have to be all or nothing, and that's an important first lesson. It's hard to say that in order to make any changes we are going to have to re learn how to slowly begin to trust our own government again. This isn't a book about government or about free speech or anything except maybe where the hippies went to far. Their ideas and ideals were great, they just needed to install some working brakes into that magic bus heading to Haight-Ashbury, that was all. One small mistake--brakes! Who knew?? Who would've thought a simple thing like stopping could've and would've--and did end up being this disastrous?? Mar 28, Carrie rated it did not like it. At pages, this book is an extremely annoying whirlwind tour of popular philosophy with a little psychoanalysis and economic theory thrown in , applied in broad strokes to the idea of "counterculture". It would be difficult for even a more compelling writer to satisfactorily explain even one of these topics at that short length. The authors' thesis is unclear, and at times their brief explanations of others' ideas are simply incorrect. This book smacks of self-righteousness, and is just not v At pages, this book is an extremely annoying whirlwind tour of popular philosophy with a little psychoanalysis and economic theory thrown in , applied in broad strokes to the idea of "counterculture". This book smacks of self- righteousness, and is just not very smart. It could have been an engaging, informative exploration of the factors that caused and continue to cause cultural rebellion to feed the very culture it wishes to negate. Instead, it is a snarky, vacuous diatribe against hippies and punks - presented as a feat of intellectual maneuvering. I've got nothing against complaining about hippies and punks, but only if the complainers have more to base their opinions on than "I had purple hair in college and I thought I was making a difference in the world, but now that I'm in my 30's I realize that actually I was just a self-absorbed teenager and I feel uncomfortable about that". For the layperson with no prior knowledge of the ideas they present and I don't mean popular culture or punk rock , it is at best misleading. For the reader with even a basic working knowledge of the concepts at hand, it's simplistic and irritating. The whole thing is really just a rambling, guilty apology for the authors' misspent youth. The authors advocate social change through community organizing, coalitions, scientific research and legislative action. This book is not a guide, though, it is a long rambling rant against countercultural protest. The culture cannot be jammed because there is no such thing as 'the culture' or 'the system' Not only does it distract energy and effort away from the sort of initiatives that lead to concrete improvements in people's lives, but it encourages wholesale contempt for such incremental changes. I think they said capitalism and a market economy are unavoidable and actually the most effective and efficient way to meet the needs of the largest number of people. I think they argued for a free market, except with subsidies for people whose situations required non-standard goods. Other than these folks undefined, but presumably anyone needing adaptive products like wheelchairs, eyeglasses, diabetic foods, hypoallergenic products , they said everyone else ought to make do with whatever can be most cheaply mass produced. If consumerism is a problem, they argued, it is fed by people seeking distinction from the masses " The writing style too frequently devolves into the argumentative hyperbolic style of morning radio hosts, trying to provoke a reaction. Vegetarianism conflated with bulimia as a form of obsessive neurosis, frequent comparisons with Nazism, etc. I would recommend the introduction to this book, perhaps with a sedative of choice, but skip the rest of the book unless these ideas are entirely new to you. Jul 12, Lisa rated it it was ok Shelves: abandoned. Here is where I finally had to put the book down more then halfway through: They quote philosopher Mark King, who says how disturbing it is that what he thought of as his own unique choices can actually be predicted by advertisers, and he himself placed into a group based on all his behavior. What if you were alternately outgoing and then sullen?! The book is filled with sloppy, broad arguments with flimsy proof to back them up. This was a very readable book that made some interesting points, but it was a bit sloppy in places. Heath and Potter make fairly good arguments that non-conformist countercultures reinforce, rather than break down, consumer capitalism and often encourage antisocial behaviours that undermine the causes the participants seek to support. They definitely make some mistakes, though, and contradict themselves at times. They seem to believe, for example, that the only reason anyone would buy bread that c This was a very readable book that made some interesting points, but it was a bit sloppy in places. They seem to believe, for example, that the only reason anyone would buy bread that costs more than Wonder bread is "to avoid being victims of consumerism and mass society" - I suspect there are plenty of people who buy artisan bread because it tastes better, rather than because they believe this is in any way an anticonsumerist measure, and the idea of buying things with the best value rather than the best price doesn't inherently promote competitive consumption how many people would stop buying artisan bread just because other people started? Seeking value isn't always the same as seeking distinction, something they do acknowledge elsewhere in the book but seem to have forgotten in parts of it. They also have a tendency to lump together whole social movements such as environmentalism as parts of the counterculture they criticize when significant parts of these movements are working within the system just the way they recommend. Jun 21, Lisa rated it did not like it. Here, what seems a provocative thesis turns out to be a long gripe about anyone not smitten with consumerism. Though the authors make a good point in distinguishing between "deviance" and "dissent," they ultimately treat all "rebellion" as mere "deviance," reducing it to a fashion statement and manifestation of status-seeking. The book is fat with this kind of sweeping generalization, which - along with a host of other logical fallacies - serves mainly to dismiss its subjects. Through the first chapters, it was fun to argue with them, but soon, the only thing that kept me reading was a desire to see how bad this trainwreck would get. Frankly speaking, this is both very interesting and very disappointing book. After the first chapter one might think the book would be dedicated to "sell" part - to marketing of rebel spirit to the public. But really it's more a series of anecdotes about "dirty ol'hippies" and "fart-smelling liberals" since chapters are not really connected with each other. Falseness of this method can be seen when the author cavalierly discards spam-filters as a thing only technological libertarians would trus Frankly speaking, this is both very interesting and very disappointing book. Falseness of this method can be seen when the author cavalierly discards spam-filters as a thing only technological libertarians would trust, because they "fail to address the basic structural problem, which is social rather then technological".

https://uploads.strikinglycdn.com/files/13df7a54-1a25-4b84-9783-e9f00edf2a1d/beste-erzieherin-aller-zeiten-notizbuch-geschenkidee-fur-eine- erzieherin-notizbuch-journal-t-856.pdf https://files8.webydo.com/9586569/UploadedFiles/BE2AC128-FE0F-1A1B-28C2-16FFB468F9BE.pdf https://files8.webydo.com/9588911/UploadedFiles/A01F26CC-8C75-9142-C349-6514B30827DD.pdf https://files8.webydo.com/9590988/UploadedFiles/FD4CB5FC-61D9-E5ED-D50C-A38F3F668F6B.pdf https://uploads.strikinglycdn.com/files/a1343da8-1eee-44ec-be56-e172df9f86ab/briefe-an-einen-jungen-dichter-grossdruck-255.pdf https://uploads.strikinglycdn.com/files/5d7d9bdb-832e-4ceb-ba31-1336dc0d2aaf/kawelins-und-turgenjews-briefwechsel-mit-alexander-herzen- 188.pdf https://files8.webydo.com/9586597/UploadedFiles/D9A3D8FC-6FCC-FB11-DF43-E376863BB152.pdf https://uploads.strikinglycdn.com/files/c49bf169-b7ff-4ea2-a67f-63c10df3908a/olchi-detektive-ein-windhund-raumt-ab-786.pdf