The Challenge of the Postmodern Approach to Consumerism

In the third Minus strip, we see the trappings of consumerism and the responsibility of the true postmodern to redefine her own consumer identity.

The balloonman, in a clear homage to the powerful In Just by E. E. Cummings, is an allusion to the Christian mythological figure of Satan, otherwise known as the greek god Pan, and represents the inherent evil and cupidity of modernity’s approach to capitalism. It is in light of this observation that the true meaning of this strip begins to form.

In the first panel, Minus has, unwittingly, fallen into the consumerist trappings passed down to the Postmodern by the modern world. The modern world believed in the power of institutions–whether corporation or government–to effect the world in a positive way. Postmodernism has disabused itself of that notion, becoming inherently suspicious of conglomerates. The Postmodern, nonetheless, is first a consumer (as is only natural when one comes to see the Self as the determinant of reality) and as such can often fall into the Modernist trappings of materialism which demand implicit trust in the manifestation of Capitalism that is the Seller.

However, the inevitable abuses of that trust that have ultimately led to the Postmodern’s distrust in conglomerates are quickly made apparent to Minus. She has been deceived by the Balloonman, and the product she bought is clearly defective.

This demonstrates the inherent error in the Modernist’s Capitalist-Consumer philosophy which champions the axiom, “Caveat Emptor.” The vile Balloonman has profitted off of the innocence of a child (much like Cummings’s Balloonman) and the child’s only consolation is that she should have been a more discerning consumer.

Minus, however, as our avatar of the postmodern imagination, does not resign herself to be the victim of the Balloonman’s avarice. In Panel 5, she purchases another balloon, as the Balloonman smirks at her foolishness. Two panels later as the intentionally defective balloon once more pops, rather than being disillusioned and downcast by this inevitability, Minus redefines her purchase. Where first she had defined her purchase as the purchase of a product (as Modernism and the Balloonman certainly intended), she has now defined her purchase as an experience; an experience that explicitly includes the sound and sight of a popping balloon. Through this, Minus has redefined herself as a consumer and can truly appreciate her purchase, regardless of the intentions of the Seller.

Through this Minus teaches the necessary differences between the mandated capitalism of modernism and the participatory capitalism of postmodernism. The postmodernist philosophy is far from an optimistic one and does hold it a possibility to fully escape a capitalist economy, as flawed as it may be. Instead, the postmodern imagination allows for changes to be made within the system by the Buyer, regardless of the participation of the Seller. The Seller may have the most malicious of intentions (as the Balloonman surely does), but it is the Buyer who defines herself and her purchase. Through the redefinition of her self-identity, she is neither harmed nor hindered by the pernicious intent of the Seller. In this sense, it could be said that she has defeated the Seller, by not allowing his perception of reality to negatively influence her own.

It is in light of this that the remainder of this comic takes a more metaphorical turn. Minus is shown literally destroying the Balloonman’s product through the joy found in redefining her purchase, ecstatically popping the remaining balloons. The devillish Balloonman responds in anger, demonstrating how much of his own self-identity is wrapped in his material possessions.

Finally, this misplaced self-identity begins to manifest itself physically as the Balloonman metamorphoses into a red balloon, the color another clear reference to the Balloonman’s true nature. Minus, by redefining her consumer identity, has championed over the avarice of that villain the Balloonman, and walks away the ultimate victor.

The Role of Postmodernism in the Death of Convention

Today we examine the second Minus strip, found here.

This strip is short and succinct, yet it delivers a profound message: To the Postmodern, no subject–regardless of the traditional gravitas assigned to it–is sacred.

As the comic opens, it is clearly set in a graveyard. This immediately draws our attention to the theme of mortality that prevades the comic. The graveyard is a traditional, ordered, and formal representation of human mortality. Minus, like many of us, is first confronted with the issue of her own mortality by force, rather than choice:

Whether it be a family pet or a distant relative, like Minus, for most of us the issues of mortality are first raised by others. It is only then we consider our own mortality, a thought plainly seen on the shocked face of our protagonist in the next two panels.

The angel, here, is a sort of harbinger of Death. Each snowball hurled towards Minus is another weary warning. “Though it be not now, your death is a definite eventuality, young one,” the Angel of Death seems to say. The statue itself is reminiscent of 13th century grotesques, contemporary to their more well-known cousins, gargoyles, in medieval architecture. Grotesques were often used to represent humanity’s fear of the unknown. And so it seems a fitting representation, then, of our fear of Death: the Ultimate Unknown.

Minus’s reaction is shocking! Her return volley to the Angel a defiant protest against the traditional fear of one’s own mortality; a deliciously sacriligious protest, at that. She displays the typical postmodern contempt for Death, a defiance to shrink from it. In Minus’s playful spirituality, she shows an attitude increasingly common in postmodernism: humanity is no longer subject to the tyranny of the finiteness of physicality (a tyranny imposed by the Naturalism of the Modern world, I might add) but is free to explore the possibility of a life beyond death. Minus’s defiance seems to shout, “Death need not be seen as simply the end of my journey! It may just as soon be seen as the beginning of my next!”

Then enter new characters, an elderly couple that serve as the backdrop for Mr. Armand to make his grand and final point. At first, as is apparent in panels 12 and 13, Minus decides to feign solemnity for the sake of the by-passers who may not be prepared to engage in the Postmodern dialogue. This is of course a concession Postmodernism has often, in the past, had to make for the prominent figures of Modernity.

In panel 15, we see these Modern conventions of Solemnity deduct, incorrectly, Minus’s acquiescence to the commanding Formality of Death. Modern sensibilities demand a veneer of sanctity in the face of Death which this couple, mired in convention, clearly heed. Minus has already rebelled against this Modern play in private; however, she has found herself forced into her anticipated social role by these new observers. Bringing up, of course, the relevance of the Observer Effect: simply the act of observing an event changes the event.

Minus, in response to her own sudden–albeit undesired–part in the charade, decides to impress upon these confining and supposing embodiments of Convention her Postmodern sensibility. In Postmodernism, convention and tradition quickly lose all meaning. History and Social Norms hold no sway in Postmodernism where the Self is the only determinant of Truth. And so Minus displays this through the only means available to her, that even the typically heavily-weighted Conventions afforded to Death and mourning (as it is clear that these two are indeed genuine mourners) hold no sway over the irreverant Imagintion of Postmodernism.

The Search for the Ideal: Postmodernity vs. Modernity

The original comic can be found here.

The first Minus comic begins simply enough:

It is significant that the entire comic series begins with a panel of a white ball and Minus. I do not think that I can adequately verbalize the importance of the symbolism found here. Nonetheless, I will do my best to expound upon it.

The circle has, of course, been a symbol of completeness, infinity, and perfection since ancient times. As a symbol, the circle has become increasingly important to postmodernity, which incorporates more Eastern philosophies than any previous Western worldview. Where Modernity views time linearly, many Eastern religions and philosophies view time as a circle or wheel, forever repeating.

This, too, was the ancient grecian perspective of time. However, the circle held weight for them for another reason as well: The circle is the mathematical ideal, it is Perfection. So here we see Minus, our protagonist, reaching out in restrained curiosity for the Ideal. Of course, in a sense, this is representative of the struggles of all human cultures through out all of time. However, as we will come to see, Minus is the physical manifestation of the power of imagination, faith, mysticism, and spirituality that belongs to Postmodernity and which makes it strikingly different from the Modern perspective. Specifically, then, this panel shows the struggle of Postmodernism to understand and attain the Ideal and make it actualized.

The next panel brings up an interesting tenant of Postmodernity: the acknowledgement of human limitation. In this panel, as in the rest of this strip, Minus is never depicted touching the ball. Though she may manipulate it (as it flies and bounces about), and though she finds delight in struggling with Perfection, she may never attain it. To touch on the Ideal would be to spoil its perfection, the very thing that gives it value. The purpose, then, for Minus–as well as for Postmodernity–is not the ultimate acquisition of the Ideal, but rather, in the struggle for and journey to that Ideal. Alone and unpreverted by the confines of reality and the harsh criticisms of the naturalist, Imagination (Minus) finds a great joy in this neverending chase.

However, this kind of joy is never left unchecked for long; neither in our world or Minus’s. So enter our antagonists:

The first of these two nameless boys enters with a question, an inquiry (“Hey, that’s the new student playing there, right?”). It is then immediately apparent that these two are the ambassadors of Modernity for this strip, deductive reasoning being the hallmark and basis of all Modern thought. Referencing her as the “new student” further concretes in our minds Minus as the representative of Postmodernity, the metaphorical “new student” of all history’s schools of Philosophy. The immediate condescension and skepticism displayed in their dialogue are typical of Modernity’s skepticism of Postmodern assertions.

In the fifth panel we have a startling turn of events that serves to truely highlight where Postmodernism has diverged from Modern thought. Modernism has always held that the Ideal is attainable and that through means of Reason and Science the Ideal will be attained by humankind. Minus, then, shows Postmodernity’s skepticism of the attainability of the Ideal or any ultimate Truth. However her skepticism is expressed quite differently than their’s (as we see in panel six), rather than harshly dismiss his “success” in attaining Perfection, she graciously concedes that he may have dones so and simply expresses her desire to continue to search for it on her own. The contrast serves to indicate Postmodernity’s acknowledgement of the subjective nature of Truth.

As we see in the following panels, in their desperate struggle to attain and manifest the Ideal, their humanity (and, dare I say, desperate assertion of Objectivity?) has perverted and twisted the Ideal, turning it into an instrument of violence. This is easily seen as a criticism of the West’s historical movement of Imperialism, however, I believe the metaphor stretches beyond this. In the past, Modernity has insisted that through Reason humanity shall attain Perfection. History, though, has shown that every scientific break through has resulted in an equal amount of setbacks and advances for the race as a whole. Postmodernity, in response, insists that no Perfection will ever be attained, nor any Absolute Truth made known. However, it maintains that the search and struggle to acheive those goals still holds value, particularly when one acknowledges the futility of the search. This is why it is the domain of Imagination, rather than Reason.

Finally, we see that the natural world–which Modernity has historically sought all its answers in (refusing to acknowledge anything metaphysical) and sought to harness in their search for Perfection–is an instrument in the failure of Modernity. Of course, this is a reflection of the drawbacks of Industrialization (and perhaps even the issue of Climate Change) and its role in the increasing obselescence of the Modern perspective. The natural world that Modernity has always been so sure it understood is shown to subvert the very goals of Modernity while Modernity remains pleasantly ignorant. Postmodernity, in its humble acknowledgement of the importance of care for the natural world (as well as her inability to fully understand it) is the only one who remains. And so, as Modernity and its violent critics begin to pass away, Postmodernity–the imagination, the drive for the mystical–is left to continue her search in its simplicity: a game in which she delights.