Galeano and Lury Reflection

Galeano provides a unique and passionate perspective into the issues that plague Latin America.  His argument is rooted in the foundational idea that most of Latin America’s issues stem from the exploitation of imperialism and the continued exploitation by foreign and domestic powers of Latin America’s resources. This is an argument I had heard before but Galeano took this argument a step further in a way I had never thought of. He argues that the reason Latin America has lost or been “defeated” is because of the success of others and that the failure of Latin American was necessary to ensure the success of other countries. This along with an ever-increasing birth rate has created a “time bomb,” as Galeano refers to it of young Latin Americans who are no longer willing to accept a system that ensure their poverty. Further, Galeano writes in depth about birth control the promotion of it by missionaries in Latin America to no avail. I was particularly disturbed by the section that discussed the discussed the World Banks emphasis on birth control and calculations that aim to show the “advantages of not being born.” Essentially according to the World Bank, impoverished countries best chance at economic growth is to stop having kids. Kids who could grow up to have brilliant ideas about how to help the world. More importantly, kids who parents’ choice, and only their choice it is to have them. This particular section of the reading left me with many further questions including:

How does a person’s right to choose the life they want – particularly the size family they want – interact with the economic necessity to limit population growth? Is it ethical to ask someone to give up their right and privilege to have children for an economic reason? On the other hand, how can we expect to alleviate the burden of poverty when the population continues to grow at a rapid rate? How does one reconcile the ethical issues of population growth with the economic ones? Finally, Galeano discusses that the “perfectly rational” capitalist system is inherently flawed as it is really only rational for the foreign and domestic 1%. The system only makes sense and only works for the people who created the system, and they created the system paying no mind to the people it would inherently leave behind. As the system continues it only widens the gap between the rich and the poor, the foreign and domestic and thus widens the gap between each party’s ability to understand the view of the other.

            Lury provides a distinctively different view of consumer culture than I have ever considered before. Lury defines consumer culture as an identity and broadens the definition of consumption to include the appropriation or transformation of something. The idea of consumer culture is inherently related to inequality because as said in the reading the price tag of a good determines who and to what extent a person can participate in that culture. This system automatically excludes on the basis of economic class, but even with this exclusion dominant cultures still form without even though many people cannot participate in it. This portion of the reading raised the question for me: How does a culture or trend become dominant when many people cannot participate in it? What factors other than participation allow a culture to become dominant? I particularly connected with the statement that regarded consumption as having to do with meaning, value, and communication. How the exchanging of goods can create meaning in social relations. An example I thought of was a wedding ring. This is a good that symbolizes a social relationship, it has meaning to the individual and also the rest of society, and the exchange of that good is a communicated question of “will you marry me.” Further, a wedding ring comes with a price and one’s ability to participate in this culture and to what extent that can participate – in other words, what kind of ring can they afford – is dependent on their economic status. In conclusion, this analysis of consumer culture opened my eyes to different interpretations of the concept and allowed me to think about what it really means to consume something.