"LIFE ETC."

What About Our Perception of Reaction?

My Marxist friends become mad at me whenever I remind them of the huge contradiction they're in: All the revolutionary e-mails, mail groups and websites owe their existence to (i) Intel or AMD, (ii) Microsoft, (iii) Yahoo!, Google or (again) Microsoft. Plus, every time these "revolutionary" spam mails are sent via the Internet, they act as marketing tools for the e-mail companies because the more e-mails you send, the more advertisements they'll get.

Since I'm not a supporter of Marxism, I enjoy hyperspace without any hesitations. I would regret having faith in Orthodox Marxism in 2007, not because of any theoretical problems about Marxism (its theoretical side is still helpful), but because every violent action and every reactionary demonstration organized "in order to harm the system" is used by the "system" itself as great material for the news broadcasts of both local and global media giants. And commercial giants generally own those companies. Every leftist demonstration adds one more advertisement to the list.
Every t-shirt with a stylized Che figure swallows the revolutionist leader into the marketing world. When The Motorcycle Diaries (a movie on Che Guevara's youth) takes its place on the shelves of a VCD shop next to Scary Movie 4, it will do no harm to Capitalism. Even if you categorize the movies in the shop, Che will hardly escape from National Geographic documentaries.

It's not even consumption; it's circulation and re-production. The only thing you have to decide is whether you will consume acceptation or reaction. Will you re-produce the existing order or will you re-produce the failed attempts at change?

Since the thing they react against already owns the ways of reaction, all attempts backfire and lose their meanings. And this doesn't happen only on a political plane.
Dove, for example, a famous soap company which claims to produce cream bars instead of soaps (a pathological case of commercial self-denial) nowadays stages a new play which they call "Campaign for Real Beauty." I call it "We Gotta Tell the Truth Before Anyone Finds Out" instead.

In this game (or ad-campaign), Dove questions our perception of beauty with the slogan "No wonder our perception of beauty is distorted." In a video they distribute, they show how a woman's appearance is completely changed via make-up, hairstyle and computer effects. The result is incredible: she becomes someone else!

But the result is literally incredible. The credibility is questionable because we never know if they've added in another make-up trick before shooting the video. What if the woman was made to look less attractive than she really is at the beginning? If we're not sure of the reality of the video, why believe in it?

Reaction is meaningful as long as your reaction does not strengthen the thing you're reacting against. Otherwise, you will take your place in a vicious circle. You will share the same stage with the "enemy" and the fight will be meaningless.

If we're to remix the phrase written by Shakespeare for a Nokia ad campaign:
"All the fight's a stage, and all the men and women merely players." Reaction, nowadays, may be just another way of submission. And questioning might hinder the possible answers.