Nick Gillespie | April 10, 2008
Via
Arts & Letters Daily comes
this interesting
Spiked review of the book Ribbon Culture, by Sarah
Moore, which looks at the "the relentless rise of
awareness-raising ribbons—kitsch fashion items that express the
wearer's fear of disease or empathy with victims."
In seeking to understand why the individuals she interviewed wear the ribbons or wristbands that they do, Moore's account stands out through her refusal to pander to the rhetoric of ribbon culture, which emphasises ‘awareness', ‘caring' and engagement with a cause. In reality, these positive rhetorical sentiments mask an anxious, self-obsessed, depoliticised culture....
The increasing orientation towards the self has been theorised by several influential thinkers, including Christopher Lasch in The Culture of Narcissism (1979), Anthony Giddens in Modernity and Self-Identity (1991), Ulrich Beck in Risk Society (1992) and Frank Furedi in Therapy Culture (2004). It is understood to be a product of the breakdown of traditional institutions and relations of solidarity, which lead to a more fragmented, risk-conscious society, in which the quest for meaning takes on a more individualised, uncertain form. Critics such as Lasch and Furedi view this process as a predominantly negative one, leading to a fearful, isolated outlook that rests on a diminished sense of the individual and society, while the Giddens school of thought presents it in a rather more positive, liberatory light.
Put me in the Giddens school to the extent that I think the breakdown of traditional institutions is both overstated and generally liberatory and the turn toward the individual to be a good thing. I find Lasch generally unpersuasive as a social critic and am a disagreeing admirer of Furedi's work. But the review (and I presume the book it's based on) is certainly worth checking out.
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
All the ribbons and wristbands and stickers remind of that John Prine song Your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore
The guy on the left is John Paragon, who played "Jambi" on Pee-Wee's Playhouse. Completely serious.
Ribbons for "The Troops©", "Breast Cancer Awareness©" and god only knows what else are one more reason to despise Tony Orlando.
I think the breakdown of traditional institutions is both
overstated and generally liberatory
Of course the breakdown of institutions in civil society has been
paralleled by the growth of the state. I'm not sure its entirely a
coincidence. After all, in "a more fragmented, risk-conscious
society," too many people fall back on Mama State to coddle them,
having, thanks to the breakdown of civil institutions, no one else
to turn to.
Isnt it just a concrete example of "wearing your heart on your
sleeve"?
Or lapel.
People like to show off that they've got a caring compassionate
soul. Thats so vapid that they need to advertise it. But that part
goes over their heads, obviously.
The things that get me are those plastic wristbands of varying
shades that are supposed to indicate sympathy for one cause or
another.
Also reminds me too much of that thing involved with big gay
sex-parties, where like a pink hanky meant one thing, and yellow
another, and brown... well, look it up, because it isnt really my
area of expertise.
here you go. Probably an urban myth, but hey, it's on the internet.
That makes it .00001% true
http://www.pendorwright.com/faqs/hankies.html
I'm picking mustard-colored. It's my running gag now.
"As a libertarian, I hate public financing of health care research. I also hate privately-promoted PR campaigns intended to spur charitable donations to health care research. I guess what I really want is a pony."
Casey, are you feeling ok? You managed an entire comment without
calling someone gay.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
The most annoying ribbons I have seen are the "autism awareness" puzzle piece ones. Many of actual autistics find it offensive.
The guy on the left is John Paragon, who played "Jambi" on
Pee-Wee's Playhouse. Completely serious.
That's crazy. My only semi-interesting Pee-Wee fact is that the
chick who played Miss Yvonne now plays Charlie's mom on It's Always
Sunny in Philadelphia. Who knew that Pee-Wee's Playhouse would be
such a launching pad for future television success?
Many of actual autistics find it [the ribbon]
offensive.--Dallas
One of the more irritating things about notoriety must be the fact
that one cannot screen one's supporters, particularly the
enthusiastic ones.
Two magnetic ribbons I've seen lately were a green one reading "Legalization Now" and a black and red one "Support Lap Dancing".
I bought some clothing on Radley's site with orange ribbons that say 'support dissent'
Who knew that Pee-Wee's Playhouse would be such a launching
pad for future television success?
You do know that Laurence Fishburne was Cowboy Curtis on Playhouse,
right?
My only semi-interesting Pee-Wee fact is that the chick who
played Miss Yvonne now plays Charlie's mom on It's Always Sunny in
Philadelphia.
Philadelphia is my current favorite show.
Un-fucking-believable.
BTW, if I wear a ribbon showing in a totally trivial way my support for something, does that actually hurt anybody?
Casey, are you feeling ok? You managed an entire comment
without calling someone gay.
I think John Paragon might be gay... the character he played on
Seinfeld certainly was. :-)
My favorite wrist band:
http://hardenthefup.com/
From:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Apsh7Cjzzw
Warning:
The following link is to the Wikipedia entry for Cowboy Curtis.
Before clicking, please finish swallowing any liquid in your mouth
and be sure your boss is not around.
Cowboy
Curtis
I must be the only person who has never seen "Pee Wee" in any
medium, nor had any desire to.
Oh, I agree with the narcissism theory of "ribbon culture".
"I think the breakdown of traditional institutions is both
overstated and generally liberatory and the turn toward the
individual to be a good thing"
I think that trad. institutions are positive, unless they're forced
on individuals by the state. It seems to me that a truly free
society has to have a tradition-based set of voluntary relations to
replace the welfare state: a lot of our social problems were caused
by the shredding of the family unit by the 'War on Poverty'. There
has to be, imo, a middle-ground outside of Rand's individualism,
without resorting to the Paleocon let's-bring-back-the-middle-ages
mindset.
From the same issue of Spiked, I found another very good article
about the elitism of the current Democratic party:
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/reviewofbooks_printable/4926/
I always decline any attempts to get me to wear an AIDS ribbon or a breast cancer awareness ribbon (but don't get me wrong, I like breasts. a lot.). I do offer to instead wear a brown ribbon to raise colorectal cancer and prostate cancer awareness. No one ever seems interested in taking me up on that.
When Livestrong became a fashion thing and everyone had one, its
charity meaning was totally eliminated. But when copycats made
hundreds of serious and parody designs, a few charity-minded people
still bought Livestrong and didn't wear it.
I know it's not the most effective way of protesting/giving to
charity, but it did prove a point to the idiots who saw them do
it.
I think that trad. institutions are positive, unless they're
forced on individuals by the state.
Some good, some bad. Whether an institution (whatever you mean by
that) is traditional or not has no bearing on whether it's a
positive thing or not. Racism and homophobia, or generally any fear
of the different, are two traditions that have existed without
needing the state to enforce them.
Anywho, I agree with your sentiment about people treating each
other right and not being extremist nutjobs.
Of course the breakdown of institutions in civil society has
been paralleled by the growth of the state. I'm not sure its
entirely a coincidence. After all, in "a more fragmented,
risk-conscious society," too many people fall back on Mama State to
coddle them, having, thanks to the breakdown of civil institutions,
no one else to turn to.
I think it works the other way around. Institutions used to be
important because they provided social services. The government
stepped in to provide these services "free," either driving the
civil institutions out of the business or co-opting their efforts
through grants and regulation.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245