Customer Reviews

Rebel Sell

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

The Rebel Sell is the most thought-provoking and enjoyable critique of contemporary social and political myths that I have read in a long while. It is carefully argued and extremely engaging. It's a ruthless critique of many icons of contemporary thought, from Klein to Foucault, from Marx to Freud as well as a fascinating interpretation of North-American culture, from American Beauty to Kurt Cobain, from alternative culture to environmentalists. And this is the exact reason why those involved social critique and political activism should read this.

The central argument of the Rebel Sell is simple: since the 50s and 60s, the problem with left-wing politics is that it misdiagnoses the source of problems in society. While the critique of mass society identifies the source of problems in the inhuman and deeply repressive nature of "the system", Heath and Potter argue that 1) there is no such thing as the system and 2) most problems in our society are "collective action problems". The book is excellent at demonstrating the deeply individualistic and entrepreneurial nature of counter-culture and at showing how it feeds, and not rejects, the 'system'.

I was personally fascinated by the role of 'collective action problems' and the left's failure to address them. For instance, the authors argue that the source of most violence in society is rational. Following Freud, the left has ignored this fact, and focused on emotions and instincts. Similarly, the authors argue that consumerism is very much a product of defensive competition in the struggle to maintain status in society. Hence, SUVs, gun ownership, tuition fees, etc. are 'collective action problems', the solution to which does not rest in individual choices, but rather in collective decision-making.

There is a lot more in the book than just this. The authors in fact do an impressively good job at moving from philosophical arguments to actual examples. The sections on the social construction of taste, the importance of cool as a positional good and the discussion of alternative lifestyle are fascinating. In addition, the book has a great index and a very accurate bibliography.

For anyone that is genuinely interested in the social problems of contemporary society, this book is a must-read. It is not a manifesto for political action: in fact, it's most successful achievement is the accurate critique of the most prominent movements and ideas of our time. It is fascinating (and deeply troubling) to see how hypocritical and misguided political movements have been recently. A focus re-shift is necessary, and here's where to start.

Nietzsche once said there is nothing worse for your position than to have someone argue for it poorly. As a progressive, I felt that way for a long time about the counter-culture wing of the leftist movement and their strident railing against "the omnivorous System." Fortunately, this book nicely defangs one of the most wrong-headed and unhelpful political movements in the last 50 years.

Rebel Sell starts by destroying the sociological and moral psychological underpinnings of the counterculter movement which are generally housed upon Marx and Freud respectively. The authors point out (and Chris W seems to have missed this point), that both Marx and Freud have been largely chased out of the world of philosophers and theorists, even though the ghosts of these thinkers still haunt the minds of the amateur intellectuals that make up the ranks of the counterculture.

After that, the rest of the book is a lively and often very amusing discussion of the silliness of the counterculture ideology (thank you, India!) combined with a complete debunking of most of its claims, and a damning critique of any real substantive solutions to legitimate problems. For liberals such as myself who are tired of being embarrassed by the pseudo-rebels in Nike shoes, this book is a welcome relief.

In The Rebel Sell: Why the Culture Can't Be Jammed, Joseph Heath and Andrew Potter challenge using countercultural or subversive behaviour to establish social justice. Their claim is that the ideals of the counterculture are the same things that drive capitalism and purchasing. Rebellious purchasing, whether that be organic food, extreme sports, grunge fashion, or something else, is sold on the same idea as a Lexus or Rolex - the desire to be different. In essence, the counterculture cannot be co-opted because it does not exist.

The Rebel Sell does not take cheap shots at the left or advocates for social justice. Heath and Potter write about the need for progressive change. At least one is a former punk who participated in varied subversive actions. They write to progressives and the left to attempt to show that blocking or rejecting culture in order to bring about change is counterproductive. Such a rejection may also result in odd situations. A female MP campaigning for equal rights may be considered oppressive because she is on the inside. A Caucasian male from an affluent background who rails against the world in a coffee shop (independent shop, of course) becomes more credible and is somehow even a victim.

Heath and Potter conclude that compromise is necessary. Compromise is not selling out and it does mean that everything you believe is up for grabs. Instead, compromise is identifying where negotiation is possible and asking what will most likely bring about a desired outcome. Without understanding compromise in this way, we will have a world where there is very little opportunity for any change while smug, self-righteous people yell at "The Man." The market is the only means for such compromise. Pluralism and choosing the best bits from a variety of ideas allows for social change if choices are made intelligently. The market accepts that the utopian ideal of having everyone believe in the same cause is mutually exclusive with pluralism. Pluralism forces us to learn how to disagree well and disagreeing well requires society and norms. This does not mean that the market is universally good. We can acknowledge failures in the market without completely rejecting it. We should strive to fix these failures. Absolute freedom is impossible and civilization is needed for progressive change.

Potter and Heath use two methods to demonstrate that subversion is not able to reform culture for the better. Part one shows that countercultural rebellion is ineffective. They rhetorically ask, "How many times can the system be subverted without noticeable effect before we begin to question the means of subversion?" The mainstream, it seems, is happy to chug along and see subversion as inconsequential or entertaining. Subversive groups may even be a target market. Part two explains a countercultural idea and then demonstrates it as ultimately untenable and counterproductive. The "hacker ethic," for example, ensures that information is free for everyone. The hacker ethic uses netiquette rather than rules to govern discourse. Sometimes, however, people use "free expression" as an excuse for harassment, coercion, or flaming. Such activities are as effective at repressing free speech as state sponsored censorship.

I genuinely believe that government can bring about social justice. (I also believe that doing so is their God-given responsibility.) This book made a good case that subversion is not effective or coherent. I like that Heath and Potter suggest plugging holes instead of simply giving the finger to the world. I also like their suggestion that it is as likely (maybe even more likely) that an oppressor other than government or "the system" will stifle freedom. When culture jammers fail to offer an alternative to the culture that they are trying to bring down, they propose a vacuum by default. Without the restraints that a civilization provides, there is nothing to prevent the biggest guy from winning.

Coming from a "social-justice Christian" perspective, I find this book useful. I find myself often in situations where I am with other social justice proponents. Many of my conversation partners are proponents of being countercultural and some endorse culture jamming. I disagree with them, but have rarely been able to move beyond a "Yes, but" conversation. The Rebel Sell allows me to now say, "No, because." The book isn't perfect (some of their arguments about counterculture using cliché could easily be used against the authors as well; their take on the basic beliefs of Christianity are drastically different than mine) but it still makes a significant contribution to the social justice conversation.

This book does say that there is a system. It says that the system exists to regulate the rules and realities around us. It argues that instead of wasting time by fighting the establishment through countercultural behaviour, we should make the effort to reform and improve the structures that exist.

It goes on to further show how counterculture behaviour cannot only arrest development, but that its antisocial ideas and actions can harm us. Instead of behaving like adolescents, pointing fingers at the corporations that only sell us what we demand, we should be building a better society through real political process. This distinguishes thoughts and actions between dissent and deviance.

Perhaps you're like me, having already read "No Logo" & "Fast Food Nation". You were a punk in high school and are still seeking ways to "smash the system". Instead of trying to destroy 2000 years of culture, as Atari Teenage Riot would have us do, we should follow the conclusions that the authors reach. This book actually offers sound advice, rather than simply complain. Their ideas are practical and realistic.

Anyone interested in evolutionary psychology will feel at home with terms like "competitive consumption". The authors recognize that our quest for status affects those around us. What they object to is when your aspirations begin to harm society, when it is threatened by zero-sum games. Your attempts at distinguishing yourself from the masses could not only be pointless, but damaging. See their sections on the prisoner's dilemma, where they expand on that borrowed concept.

The authors rarely self-identify during the book, and I found this single voice to facilitate the reading experience. It was a wise decision. Overall, the writing is excellent, especially considering the critical nature of the topic. They also include the word "smacktard", which should be added to your everyday conversation.

I found the book to be quite an interesting stroll down consumerism lane. The authors do an excellent job of providing examples of consumerist interaction in daily life to bolster their argument that trying to remove oneself from "the system" to be different or to avoid participation in what is viewed as a flawed social contract, further promotes capitalism in the end.

Of course one can argue the degree of generationally contextual analysis they apply is a criticism, attributable to the generation in which they find themselves, I suppose all the more evident if you are an older person who does not hold with their viewpoint. However, I am a gen exer myself, and found much of the themes expressed in the book refreshingly familiar and evocative.

I must confess I have not read Ms. Klein's book, to which the authors make several references as an elucidated opinion worthy of a good intellectual bashing. Then again a good intellectual bashing never hurt anyone...so I think I'll now turn to her book for an amble down anti-globalization avenue & see if its warranted.

Heath and Potter propose an important project here: explaining the failure of counter-cultural politics to effect meaningful change. The "Left" certainly has problems, hypocrites, contradictions, paradoxes, delusions and dead-ends that deserve to be exposed, understood and transcended.

As worthy as this project may be, Heath and Potter botch it in oh so many ways. Let's begin with their selective and misrepresentative summaries of everything from philosophers to pop culture. Off the top of my head, I found glaring errors in their use of Freud, Marx, Marcuse, game theory and of course the counter cultural movement itself (Freud never considered "instinct" synonymous with "freedom," for example; quite the opposite actually). In their description of Fight Club, they simply made up scenes that did not actually take place in the film or novel. Their account of Bowling for Columbine was inaccurate to the point of willful deceit. They make huge claims for sweeping cutlural trends, but their "proof" is often limited to anecdote, and individual works of fiction and cinema. The have a maddening habit of making claims with no documentation at all. Yet all of their conclusions are presented with an absolute authority of one who speaks final and absolute "truth."

The biggest problem is their use of straw-man arguments. They often point quite legitimate flaws in the counter-cultural movements, but then use these flaws, no matter how small or ad hominem, as a way of disqualifying an entire, complex movement. Dismissing the anti-globalization movement based on Naomi Klein's alleged need for social status is not only a logical fallacy, but it deflects debate from the real issues she raises, such as unfair trade policies, outsourcing, child labour and environmental destruction. The counter-cultural movement is complex and not without lapses and contradictions. This does not invalidate it.

They often have a valid observations (such as the positional value of some consumer goods) but then inflate them to such universal proportions that they become laughable. If we followed their use of the zero-sum game, for example, we should include that famine, drought and poverty are impossible.

I could go on and on and on about the poor scholarship and logical lapses of this book. I often felt like I was reading a Rush Limbaugh performance piece. Interesting ideas -- but so dishonest and manipulative and selective and juvenile and agenda-driven that any value is flushed away in their stream of coercive rhetoric.

Kurt Cobain did it. This book demonstrates that counterculture has now chosen to negate itself. It would help if it aimed to overcome itself. A cautious start to this process is proposed here.
Joe Heath and Andrew Potter paint a scathing portrait of the counterculture as a movement by identifying it merely as a market segment which particularly drives capitalism and the pro-corporate world.
This isn't news to anyone. One might imagine Kenneth Lay and the Enron execs as glorious anti-heroes in the tradition of Easy Riders if they weren't so stinking rich. Screw the man. Screw everybody if you get a chance.
What this book fails to do is to address the most important issues it only skips through: social injustice and environmental destruction. The two academics offer very little in terms of solutions, concentrating on attacking the very trend they have epitomized with this book, and thus we witness the counterculture countering itself.
As such they are merely selling an entertaining book. Let's rebel against rebellion, yeah that's the ticket.
This being said they are helpful in having us reconsider politics seriously, rather than trying to change the world through pop culture, which in the end only serves as entertainment. The Canadian documentary The Corporation offers a potent political starting point without beating around the bush: let's make corporations accountable to all stakeholders, not only to the shareholders.
It's refreshing to see a discourse evolve in the direction this book takes us. But to those seeking solutions to the problems plaguing our kind, this is fluffy entertainment.

don't get me wrong. the rebel sell has some great ideas in it, ideas about how we each reinforce the social system even at the same time we denounce it. ie. you can't refer to the masses unless you include yourself as well. The Rebel Sell is a good critique of the modern counter-cultural idea. But unfortuantely the book's concept is not well formed and readers may have a tough time trying to tie it all together.
The Rebel Sell suffers from terrible writing, endless pointless examples that had me dreading turning the next page, hoping in vain that I would find a stunning conclusion, and not just another dismissive tirade. let me give you an example of my biggest annoyance. One of the first chapters takes us through Freud's concepts on the mind and how they still influence our thinking and hence our cultural perspective today. It's a wonderful chapter that had me nodding my head, intriuged, until the chapter abruptly ends with 'but Freud was proven wrong and discredited, so there.' umm, what? care to elaborate? the authors make a lot of these statements. I think the authors mistook a plethora of examples for concrete arguments. the chapters themselves do not vary alot, and i found you could pick up any page, read a few paragraphs, find another page at random, and feel like you didn't miss a thing.
Also, the authors consistently come off as incredibly condescending, and I got the ironic impression that they were trying to start a counter-counterculture movement, or I'm so uber-punk that i've come full circle and wear a suit and work at Halliburton. Actually that sums up the book well.
but if you can get through the book and distill the concepts, it may change the way you look at all our various cultures, counter-cultures and subcultures.

This book is challenging with many excellent points on the shortcomings of counter-cultural thought and I would recommend it for all the lefties that think they know all the answers. I also liked the reworking of Kant's Moral Imperative, namely, is my striving for individualism something that all people should do or it is it actually harmful to others?
On the negative side the relentlessly polemic tone irritated me and is off balance by neglecting many of the excellent contributions made by the progressive left. Like many rants, both right and left, it is easy to set up a straw man and bash it to pieces, piñata style.
One clear example is their diatribe against free-range chickens. As someone who has raised free-range chickens and turkeys, their argument that these birds actually prefer being caged to being outdoors is truly preposterous.
Another problem is ranting about Eastern philosophies. Doing more with less, and showing compassion towards all life is a central message of Eastern thought and many members of the counter-culture. Buddha's 8-fold path, for example, is sound both intellectually and ethically, in a way that the promise of a blissful afterlife via faith is not.
While short on solutions and overburdened with simplistic examples, this book is still a compelling read, and serves as an effective counter-point to many of the flaky and ultimately narcissistic ideas of today's counterculture.

PS: If the authors care to reach me for a fruitful debate, please write me at curtisvos at hotmail.com...

I have only read the first few chapters so far.

I don't know if it's the quality of the arguments or the writing, but I have found it difficult to absorb the style of the book. It's often hard to figure out when they are explaining say, the views of Freud or Marx, whether they agree with it or not, or whether they have just spent half a chapter speaking to you in some extremely dry style of sarcasm.

There have been some good points made, as mentioned by other reviewers, about the failings of counterculture. It's refreshing to hear someone talk about anti-consumerism as a market niche, just like enviromentalism became a marketing demographic, although I have always regarded it as co-optation rather than the inevitable outcome. I suppose some reads have to be maddening, annoy you in some way, to keep debate alive or you risk falling into one of the so many echo chambers where no one ever says anything you don't agree with.