NOT EVEN THE SKY IS THE LIMIT: THE MEANINGS OF CONSUMPTION AND THE DYNAMICS OF SOCIAL MOBILITY ON THE @blogueiradebaixarenda PROFILE ON INSTAGRAM AND YOUTUBE
{"title":"NOT EVEN THE SKY IS THE LIMIT: THE MEANINGS OF CONSUMPTION AND THE DYNAMICS OF SOCIAL MOBILITY ON THE @blogueiradebaixarenda PROFILE ON INSTAGRAM AND YOUTUBE","authors":"Carla Barros","doi":"10.1590/2238-38752020V1033","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Conventional economic thinking in relation to poverty is situated within a wider field of representations that associates “resource scarcity” with “subsistence economies.” In this view, poor and indigenous people live in an eternal “fight for survival” in hostile environments governed by “material shortage.” An automatic association is made in this explanatory model between “basic needs,” “privations,” “scarcity” and “the fight for survival.” If the primordial characteristic of consumption is choice, then the presupposition is that economically less-favoured classes do not practice the act of choosing, being guided instead by a logic of lack and material shortage. Sahlins (1979) developed a powerful critique of utilitarianism, understood as the idea that individuals follow their own best interests through a logic of maximizing means/end relations, and that all human cultures are thus formed through practical activity and utilitarian interest. He rejects the notion that human cultures are formulated through practical activity, calling attention instead to how the cultural order is constituted within the field of meaning. The historical disinterest in the consumption of popular classes in the social sciences is partly due to the prevalence of this logic of “lack” and the “fight for survival,” which in practice removes the structuring symbolic and cultural dimension from the phenomenon. As Barbosa (2004: 62) observes, the study of consumption in Brazil appeared much more within a vision of “losses and absences” than one of “gains and positive changes”.","PeriodicalId":37552,"journal":{"name":"Sociologia e Antropologia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sociologia e Antropologia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/2238-38752020V1033","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Conventional economic thinking in relation to poverty is situated within a wider field of representations that associates “resource scarcity” with “subsistence economies.” In this view, poor and indigenous people live in an eternal “fight for survival” in hostile environments governed by “material shortage.” An automatic association is made in this explanatory model between “basic needs,” “privations,” “scarcity” and “the fight for survival.” If the primordial characteristic of consumption is choice, then the presupposition is that economically less-favoured classes do not practice the act of choosing, being guided instead by a logic of lack and material shortage. Sahlins (1979) developed a powerful critique of utilitarianism, understood as the idea that individuals follow their own best interests through a logic of maximizing means/end relations, and that all human cultures are thus formed through practical activity and utilitarian interest. He rejects the notion that human cultures are formulated through practical activity, calling attention instead to how the cultural order is constituted within the field of meaning. The historical disinterest in the consumption of popular classes in the social sciences is partly due to the prevalence of this logic of “lack” and the “fight for survival,” which in practice removes the structuring symbolic and cultural dimension from the phenomenon. As Barbosa (2004: 62) observes, the study of consumption in Brazil appeared much more within a vision of “losses and absences” than one of “gains and positive changes”.
期刊介绍:
Sociologia & Antropologia busca contribuir para a divulgação, expansão e aprimoramento do conhecimento sociológico e antropológico em seus diversos campos temáticos e perspectivas teóricas, valorizando a troca profícua entre as distintas tradições teóricas que configuram as duas disciplinas. Sociologia & Antropologia almeja, portanto, a colaboração, a um só tempo crítica e compreensiva, entre as perspectivas sociológica e antropológica, favorecendo a comunicação dinâmica e o debate sobre questões teóricas, empíricas, históricas e analíticas cruciais. Reconhecendo a natureza pluriparadigmática do conhecimento social, a Revista valoriza assim as oportunidades de intercâmbio entre pontos de vista convergentes e divergentes nesses diferentes campos do conhecimento. Essa é a proposta expressa pelo símbolo “&”, que, no título da revista Sociologia & Antropologia, interliga as denominações das disciplinas que nos referenciam. Sociologia & Antropologia aceita os seguintes tipos de contribuição: 1) Artigos inéditos (até 9 mil palavras incluindo referências bibliográficas e notas) 2) Registros de pesquisa (até 4.400 palavras). Esta seção inclui: Apresentação de fontes e documentos de interesse para a história das ciências sociais Notas de pesquisa com fotografias Balanço bibliográfico de temas e questões das ciências sociais 3) Resenhas bibliográficas (até 1.600 palavras). 4) Entrevistas