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.