I enjoyed reading “Broccoli and Desire”. I really liked how the authors used the two lives of different individuals, Pablo and Susan, living on either side of the coin to illustrate their points. Having said this, two things were very ambiguous where I wish the author had expanded more.
The first thing I thought was ambiguous and that I had a hard time understanding, is how the authors, directly relate consumption to capitalism. In the text, it said: “In Susan’s story, we see the sort of late-capitalist consumption toward which we may maintain a cynical distance even as we willingly and gladly participate in it”. I thought that this was a conclusion that was made very lightly. Is this to say that buying from the grocery store is automatically capitalist? Is Susan automatically a capitalist because she bought broccoli at the grocery store and didn’t grow it herself? Are consumption and capitalism the same thing then?
Secondly, I also had a hard time understanding why Pablo’s shift of growing broccoli to export instead of growing traditional crops was a risky move. I understand that there’s risk in his crop being rejected, the pesticides he is exposed to, and even the small profit margins he earns, yet, as a whole, wouldn’t this still be less risky than the alternative? The alternative would be growing traditional crops and not being able to sell them due to Guatemala’s small domestic market and bad economy. Wouldn’t the alternative be riskier? Wouldn’t his shift in crops reduce his risks?
HI Andrea,
I seriously loved reading your post as you provided such a strong perspective on Unit 4’s reading. Now that you make me question it, I do agree with you on how the author was a little vague differentiating between consumption and capitalism. If we go by their definition, this would automatically mean we are all capitalists and always have been, unless we are self-sufficient, which has not been the case for years for many families. Furthermore, I do see why why you talk about farmers converting traditional to export agriculture is a bad thing. However, I do believe that for Indigenous communities, apart from trying to stay afloat in the modern society, they are doing it at the cost of losing their traditional values and culture. Hence, I do believe this is something to discuss further!
Hi Andrea, thanks for your post. I definitely agree with you and, if I’m honest, I found myself getting lost in the terminology that the authors threw around (so I hope that we’ll be able to discuss it in class!). To add to your point, if Susan is involving herself in capitalism by purchasing from the supermarket, isn’t Pablo also involving himself in the capitalist structure by undertaking export farming instead of just sticking to subsistence agriculture? Isn’t production in the capitalist structure just as “bad” as consumption? You raised really good points in this post, hopefully we can dig a little deeper on Tuesday.
Hi Andrea!
I definitely understand your confusion around the authors’ definitions of consumption and capitalism and the connection between the two. I have a lot of the same questions myself. I also think that in general, the use of only two individuals’ point of view can be quite an oversimplification of the real world situation. That may be where some of the ambiguity comes in here.
In terms of the growing of export crops being classified as a ‘risky move,’ I believe the alternative could be only growing subsistence crops for himself and his family. In that way, he is not putting himself out there. He is not doing anything new or different. There is little to no risk in doing the same thing that has always been done.