A Sociological/Capitalist glance at the Folk tale of - "Jack and the Beanstalk"

In this article I will examine the folk tale "Jack and the Beanstalk" from a sociological perspective. First off we have a poor boy who finds himself with a sick mother and is consequently  forced to engage in the market alone to improve their life chances. In an act of desperation Jack trades away the families only asset, a cow in exchange for 3 beans said to have a magical use value that will make him rich. By trading the cow for the beans Jack undertakes a speculative action, involving risk to gain a monetary reward and when his Mother finds out she becomes irate. If the beans don't work they are both as good as dead. The threat of death reoccurs throughout the tale re-affirming the power of money, capitalism and ruling ideology embedded within the story.

In the story to offset his mothers fears Jack gets to work immediately labouring to transform the beans into the 'magical beanstalk' a commodity, in a bid to off set their emmient fall into poverty. Once the bean sprouts with some luck Jack continues to labour in a different way. Whereas before he laboured to generate the commodity from the beans, now he seeks to monetise the commodity by climbing the beanstalk, in search of his due, the wages for all the effort he has undertaken in his act of creation.  

Once he has climbed the stalk he comes face to face with a violent Giant, the 'objective deterministic' structure of capitalism 'the big other' whose aim is to deny Jack 'the fruit of his own labours'. The giants role is to destroy anyone who tries to wrought the system and get rich fast. Jack understands this and moves nimbly above the world and market on the beanstalk, because he will die above or below without money to sustain him.  Because of this call to action in the face of adversity he begins to search for a way out, and glimpses the Golden Goose inside the castle. The bird could be thought of as a symbol a hidden entity the beating heart of capitalism. Within its body houses the means to unlimited capital - in such an excessive form that it shrugs off mind-boggling fortunes every time it lays a golden egg. The later of which has the power to transform Jack and his Mothers hard life 100 times over. 

As a consequence we can read 'Jack in the bean stalk' as a capitalist story about the struggle to profit against the structured labour network, that enforces our exploitation and alienation, punishable by death. The cow signifies the modest security that must be sacrificed in order to possibly profit, however the buy in afforded by the sacrifices of assets into the market does not guarantee anything. Only after intensive struggle, time consuming work and finally resorting to theft does Jack come out on top of above societies financial structures of Capitalism. Perched high in the sky not dissimilar to Marx's superstructure the castle atop the beanstalk offers death and salvation.

What becomes abundantly clear is the mystification and confusion surrounding capitalism in Jack and the Beanstalk highlighted by the death of the golden goose. Once the goose is dead the unobtainable object of unadulterated wealth our deepest desire becomes hidden, surrounded by the human network of work relations, the void of primal capital lost sheds light on human labour relations that persist. Once there is no direct means to accessing capital in its liquid form the everyone becomes reduced back down to more humble social relations. Although the golden eggs remain, they are small objects of comprehendible human wealth, finite not infinite,  that one could easily enjoy and have great affects but is limited, insignificant, lacking in reproductive quailties. To own the goose is to have it all, this possibility is really an impossibility as it undermines the way in wealth is structured throughout the human world. For what would property or intellectual rights matter if one entity had the means to own everything in the world, whether it not they actually did. The goose must die, so the myth surrounding it, the exploited human network, typified by Jack lives on. The tale of Jack and Beanstalk has its origins in the one true struggle the battle of human beings against their oppressors; labour versus capital. 

Moss Bioletti 

The Subject/Object Division of Human Beings - Slavoj Zizek

Zizek argues in line with Lacan that human beings are essentially dualistic entities in his book the "The Sublime Object of Ideology". He would have us believe that we are both subject and object in our individual human form. And as puzzling it sounds there is a strong sense of truth and irony as we understand easily that we are subjects surrounded by objects, however we are not so willing to accept that we are also an object surrounded by a subject. From my interpretation of Zizeks thinking it seems the mind/mental states are considered the 'holy object' whereas the body is the subject and less fundamental. But what are we to make of this dualistic division within ourselves and what can it teach us.

Well firstly one must acknowledge the role of desire noted by Zizek as he identifies the strong role it plays in motivating and establishing our drive towards the 'objet petit a'; the fundamental object of desire, of which we can never truly attain, because it simply doesn't exist. Possibly stretching his reach Zizek go so far as to state that the 'objet petit a' is in fact the object inside us, 'the very self of self' that is characterised by a lack/void or impenetrability as it is a completely negative entity.

To try and distinguish the difference between the object and subject Zizek offers us two examples. The first is a painting of "Lenin at Warsaw" which puzzling doesn't depict Lenin but his wife in bed with her young lover in bed, who are both certainly not in Warsaw where Lenin is. Zizek identifies that the woman is the 'subject' of the painting and Lenin is 'the invisible object', the later of which gives the painting it's real meaning by way of the title. The very name of the painting apparently cuts through the canvas in a metaphorical way allowing one to understand the comical/serious affair of the heart.

What I find compelling about the example of the Russian adulterous romp that Zizek identifies are the interactions between the actors of the painting when analysed. If you subtract the object 'Lenin' by removing his name from the painting the work would become a legitimate moment of passion between a couple. If you subtract the wife subject from the painting everything is reversed as the lover or other rises insignificance in relation to the object of Lenin turning the painting into a homo erotic scene, all though the later is still not depicted. 

However, the most important thing of which Zizek is clearly aware are the relationships between the subject and the object both are demanded by the painting, joining together to create a meaning impossible without the other, as well as the young lover. 

Furthermore it seems that the subject is more dependent on the object. If the subject is removed meaning for the object persists be it in a distorted way, however if the object is removed the subject now must depend upon the given context of the painting, the backdrop, that cancels out the true nature of the unfolding situation betwixt the sheets.

Product Placement in the New Britney Spears/ Iggy Azaella Music Video "Pretty Girls" and the Surplus Enjoyment of Free Money

The new Heavy synth ladened pop single about boys and girls and being pretty pretty 'were just so pretty' has been released by Cyborg Iggy and Ditzy B. I could rant and rave about how great the video and all the fine leopard skin in the video, but the Herald NZ already wrote an article in that vein about the video being a 1980’s throwback of 'Earth Girls are Easy' by some American director so Instead lets have some fun pointing out all the product placement in the song because its so pretty pretty!!

Boom from the opening shot the slick oh so fun happy go lucky video is trying to shove 'Mate Fit' into our face an energy drink for when you need to work out which you can buy here so politely go do it:

http://matefit.me

Next are the sunglasses I wasted 5 minutes of my life trying to find out what the brand was when I could've just guessed they were some kick ass Raybans even if they are just cheap knock offs from China hehehe

Well going through the video I just had to point our this ridiculous shot of Australian Iggy Iz who I actually like and think she's great and can forgive for co-directing this shameful corporate music video well kind of a girls got pay the bills. All I can say about the photo is not only is she from a different planets she looks like she is currently on a different planet from sweet old planet earth :) 

Next shock G-Shock http://world.g-shock.com/asia-mea/en/  also on a business side note there are also some big plugs for nail varnish, random hipster clothes, lipstick etc as well as what resembles a bottle of Britney Spears perfume with illusive yet certain brands attached oh cause aliens only wear

labels darling and also fair enough iff you can’t plug your own horrible smell in your own music video when can you?? 

Next is a giant push to sell us some god forsaken horrible Yellow Jeep http://triasauto.com/inventory/jeep-cj7/                       fully equipped with seat belts cause they subtract from your prettiness duhhh please and actually why don't you just go buy it for $9,000 grand what a bargain and its even the exact same one they drove in the video!! … but not really check out the seriously dangerous driving thank god it's a video clip!!!

Biggest plug of the film a really boring Samsung S6 Edge phone pleeeasseee we know they have iPhones like come on!! http://www.samsung.com/nz/consumer/mobile-devices/smartphones/?filId=1&filItemId=1

This one has Google Chrome on it :) 

Iggy even goes so far is demonstrate how the phone is 'idiot-proof' even for stupid alien cyborg. Which is saying something because she acts pretty stupid in the video, fingers crossed its an act her not trying to act heaven forbid

Earrings are a hard sell in the video too but with people this elegant and sophisticated those earrings might just fly off the shelf in every wall mart across North America :) 

However despite the mindlessly dangerous passengers antics in the cars that are kind of kick ass if not foolhardy is the overwhelming message of the music video Pretty Girls that your gonna need a cash mountain or a ATM spewing out money to afford all the BS this video is promoting to what most likely be a vast majority of young impressionable kids in America. Sadly here our sociological joinery ends i'll leave you with the final two most telling stills of the video that underlines the strong ties to money, capitalism and the exploitation of honest Americans by  corporations through the rat infested pipeline of music industry consumer hegemony.

A normal American ATM

Iggy Azaella with the modern equivalent of the Midas Touch 

A picture of an ATM spewing out free money which resembles on a micro scale what the American Federal Reserve doing what they do best pumping in and printed cash for the US economy everyday to keep the financial meltdown at bay :) Adolf Hitler did the same thing for Nazi Germany before the term 'quantify easing' (money printing) was introduced but they called him crazy!! cause he was!! 

 And they outcome hysterical joy with two people the rich elite enjoying all the money that belongs to all of the people

The Zizikian "Surplus Enjoyment" is even present in the video as there's so much fun to be had they don't even have to enjoy it all. Instead money just languishes on the pavements to be trodden on while the worst financial Recession since the great depression continues to cause people great  hardship and suffering throughout the world.

Well and also that Cameron Duddy the director of “Pretty Girls” is based in Santa Monica and shot a horrendous add for the Kardashians yep believe it!!

https://vimeo.com/101752591 

PacSun - Jenner "Back to School" from Cameron Duddy on Vimeo.

A great quote online I found critiquing the "Pretty Girls" video:
 " This is a commercial for a Samsung cell phone. They actually stop the song in the middle, have a short commercial for the cell phone and a nice clean product shot and then return to the "song." This is just an ad. This ins't a "new single." Sadly, the reason they chose Britney Spears and Iggy Azelia is that their fans are so stupid, they can't tell. Britney Spears doesn't sell many records any more, but she sells a lot of phones, perfume, shirts, buttons and... junk. Because her fans are idiots.

Zizek as a Pro-racist Sympathizer who Hates Political Correctness as it endangers our Lives unnecessarily

From Zizek's view he argues friendly politeness between others is excessively more oppressive than up front nastiness. What he states in different words is the horrible situation when you think you are not being oppressed only because you are so completely oppressed you can't bare to face it, subconsciously you've blocked it out

.

True oppression blocks out the ability to recognise the weight barring down on your shoulders. Like a monkey on your back it's not the monkey as such but the feeling that you don't have a monkey on your back that makes you unhappy, you begin to question your default position of being easy come easy go. In essence Zizek is arguing for a platonic version of tolerance in the face of racism. His thinking is it's better to know the true nature of what is occurring than rely on the faint outline of a reflection on a cave wall. In other words it's better to know you are secretly not free than believe that you are free when the big secret is that your aren't, like a chained man in the cave with the door open.

It's obvious 'obscene shared solidarity' is something that has happened consistently in society as a way to relieve stress. It's an upfront way of fully embracing our human state and nature. We are not robots we have prejudices irrational emotions and short comings embedded in our personalities either by genetic or environmental trauma. To completely dis-regard the factors that have shaped us and not be upfront with others hiding behind a veil of false politeness masking repressed racism is wrong. Because the people who are openly racist are not the problem they let their issues and prejudices seep out of them and can't really be helped. It's a problem but a much larger danger arises que Godzilla when people to polite acting as if they are completely without racism. This blocking off the issues makes it manifest in the dark recess of our mind so much faster out of sight completely unaware of the seemingly polite granny until it open them their brutal racism in fully formed juggernaut destroy mode.

Someone may have the audacity to call you a derogatory term to your face but its better than being on the wrong side of a government policy that eliminates a whole ethnic group of society, like the Jews were confronted with during the holocaust. The Nazi's were openly very racist but they weren't racist enough they always kept back they true level of racism in a way that allowed them to harness their hatred and keeping driving the jewish designed Volkswagen. Their prejudice kept stewing, their expressions and outbursts of racism weren't enough for them so they concocted something so terrible like a gas chamber to try and cure themselves of a misguided ideological constipation.

On the other hand at the opposite end of the spectrum Zizek notes that the 'patronising elevation' of the other is to be avoided due to its insincere nature masking a deep disrespect and hatred. His story of the 'native indians' caring for the the land so much that they never destroyed it or any animals is wrong. In really it's a smoke screen to hide behind while corporations pillage the land. You falsely hold something up as unobtainable ideal to make people understand they damage you are doing is not only not so bad its just normal behaviour in comparison to the heaven sent Indians who in reality burned vast tracks of land and hunted animals extinction with spears. Only using hand made spears imagine how much damage they would've done if they had developed guns independently the bastards haha they'd be nothing left for the white man to descrate.

Zizek's view opposes open racism but what he is really trying to get at can be summed by two types of people described in a forgotten film I watched. The first are 'bottlers' the second are people 'who don't bottle'. Bottlers do not get angry abusive or aggressive when confronted with abuse they take all horribleness one experiences in the world and bottles it up inside them. People without bottles instead can get very angry, aggressive and dish out abuse when other human beings annoy them. The problem arises not for people who don't bottle for those that do for bottlers will inevitable in the long run crack up under the immense levels of hatred inside their coke bottle of emotion and let the dragon out of the box by flipping and going on a shooting rampage killing everyone indiscriminately .

Better to exercise a normal amount of racism, prejudice and abuse towards others when faced by it than act political correct because inevitable bottling everything up is gonna make blow your top!