There is an excerpt in Marx’s “The Power of Money in Bourgeois Society” that is quite relevant to the world we live in today. At one point in human history nature provided the true incentives followed by individuals for example in mate selection. The survival of the fittest was an eternal conflict based on biological or natural drives in which the most viable individuals those with the best adaptations (physical build/beauty) were the ones that were most successful in acquiring the highest number of mates. Those most naturally fit would thus be the leaders or dominant individuals of the species.
Today this natural selection process has in way been tainted and corrupted by the illusions created by capitalism. Marx’s posits (in Applerouth and Edles, 2008) that “The extent of the power of money is the extent of my power” and “Thus, what I am and am capable of is by no means determined by my individuality. I am ugly, but I can buy for myself the most beautiful women. Therefore I am not ugly, for the ugliness –its deterrent power—is nullified by money” ; in my opinion this does occur more often in a world driven by fetish commodities. An individual’s chances of securing a mate are more and more dependent not on character, personality, or even physical beauty/prowess (or intelligence for that matter) but on the bulk of cash in her/his bank account and the purchasing power this cash can afford.
Where I come from this phenomenon is right there in the open. Persons that were not even given the time of day because of there lack of physical attractiveness all of a sudden are surrounded by a countless number of potential mates because of a dramatic change in their standard of living. When at one time the individual got around on an old vehicle and dressed in used, faded clothing and is now driving a late model Cadillac and wrapped in name brand clothes the only things that have remained constant are these person’s looks. Where the money comes from does not matter as long as it arrives. Marx had a point, does anyone agree?
Applerouth, S. & Edle, L. D.2008.Classical and Contemporary Sociological Theory: Text
Readings.Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"An individual’s chances of securing a mate are more and more dependent not on character, personality, or even physical beauty/prowess (or intelligence for that matter) but on the bulk of cash in her/his bank account and the purchasing power this cash can afford.
ReplyDeleteI feel I need to nitpick this a little bit. Cash is a symbol of high prowess, high intelligence, high personality, or some combination of the three. While the pursuit of money is influenced by capitalistic society, it DOES follow that having those qualities will often or usually result in having a quantity of money.
Really, how often do you see a legitimate loser with nothing to offer have a bunch of money? Money is simply an obvious way to indicate more subtle qualities. A man can attract a mate without having a lot of money, because one can have all those qualities without making a ton of money. However, the people who do so tend to be outliers. In a capitalistic society and with most people, attractive survival qualities generally lead to making money.
The key exception to this rule is between social classes, because generally a low-class person with attractive qualities will not make quite as much money as quickly as a higher-class person with similar qualities. But because people tend to marry within their social class, this difference is moot.