Translator: Translate TED Reviewer: Sebastian Betti
Who are you?
In some way,
this is one of the main questions we have to ask ourselves nowadays.
One of the most important ones.
And nevertheless,
it's as if we never quite answer it fully,
as if it doesn't even have an ultimate answer.
However, this hasn't always been like this.
During feudal system, for instance,
identities were given beforehand
at birth.
People were permanently related to the land where they lived,
to the work they performed,
and it was performed in a very different way from the way in which we work today:
For instance, the feudal worker
kept to a large extent the control over his means of production,
over his working tools
and at the same time, he was present during the whole productive process.
This is why he could conceive the final product of his work
as an extension of himself
because it was in fact a product of his creative self expression;
he could identify himself with his work.
This is why we can say that back then
there was a marriage between Identity and Work.
In the same spirit,
people used to live in small communities or feuds
that involved a very strong social cohesion;
people were "members" in the fullest sense of this word.
"Members" of a community, in the sense that a leg is a member of a body
part of an organic-functional whole
because there used to be a strong cointainment web at that time.
On the other hand, nowadays,
the first thing that current workers lose
is the certainty of land and work
that used to be the comfort of medieval workers.
Nowadays we are no longer linked for life to the land where we live,
even less to the work we perform,
let's keep in mind that in the best case scenario
this depends on a contract
that can be broken at any given time.
On the other hand, current workers
are only present in a specific moment
of the whole productive process.
This takes away from the productive process
its elements, its qualities,
its most human, most creative
most individual elements.
He was Daniel Escobar
during the '80s he worked for Renault Argentina.
During that time, he screwed over 9 million pieces.
If I were to ask you,
"In which or which one, or in how many
of this over 9 million screws can we find him?"
Well, the answer is easy; in none.
Work has become anonymous
let's think on how much of the work we perform noways would have
the very same outcome if someone else did it.
This is why that marriage is now broken.
Thus, the current individual is no longer permanently linked to the land he lives
he does not relate to the products of his work
neither with his work itself
as we no longer live in feudes he is no longer linked to his community,
we are now anonymous to each other
we have no duties towards each other.
This ends up in a strong feeling of estrangement,
of alienation, of disorientation, in current individuals.
This is why identity becomes, for the first time in history,
for the first time in humankind,
identity becomes something to be searched
it is no longer given to us beforehand,
it becomes something to be conquered,
to be achieved.
And this is why we increasingly think of ourselves as creators of identities,
as the architects of ourselves.
Going back on the divorce between Identity and Work.
Who do you think Identity will run away with after divorcing Work?
Well, with Work's best friend.
In fact, we've historically passed
from an Identity based on Work
to an Indentity centered around Consumption.
Since we began to live in big cities
where nobody knows us anymore
we are exposed to the eyes of many people that do not know us,
who do not know who we are,
and when people don't know each other
people start craving to distinguish themselves,
to differenciate themselves.
Therefore, this ends up generating
a culture of appearances
and the only way we have in order to distinguish ourselves from others
is through our ostensible consumption.
This is a type of consumption
that doesn't seek personal well being.
It is a type of consumption that has communicative,
expressive functions.
For example,
when I buy myself this car,
well, the utility of this product is clear,
it is that of taking me,
transporting me from one place to another.
Now, when I buy myself this car
the utility of this product is elswhere:
The utility of this product
lays on how it defines me,
in how it describes me,
in how it identifies me.
And in that at the same time,
it's capable of granting me reputation,
granting me recognition
from the others.
That's why the first thing I do when I buy myself this car
is to post the picture on Facebook. (Laughter)
Well, at this point, some of you might as well say,
"What's the problem with this?
"We've historically went through an identity centered around production
to an identitdy centered on consumption.
What's the problem with that?"
In the first place,
this culture of appearances ends up generating
a market of pre-established identities
for which all we have to do as active subjects
is to decide from within a menu that's already out there.
This generates a "having in order to be" dynamic
of consuming in order to belong.
And this leaves us here:
As a matter fact, these identities are always based either on matters of status
or in the best case
in matters of style or taste.
But these are individual identities,
they say nothing about our impact
or our role in the society we belong to.
Peter Singer is an Australian philosopher
and he brings foward the following example.
Imagine this:
You get a new pair of shoes for USD 300.
You go walking happily with your brand new pair of shoes,
you walk past a lake
and you see this:
There's a kid that's drowning.
You look around,
his parents don't seem to be anywhere around,
there is no other adult around,
you realize that it wouldn't represent a threat or danger to you
to come in and rescue him.
But you don't have enough time to undo your shoelaces
and take off your shoes
and they will get ruined.
Well, how many of you will save the kid, regardless of the shoes?
Put up your hands, please.
What a moralist audience I got today!
Well, Peter Singer used to find the same answer
and to this he would always reply:
Then why when it comes to spending your money
you choose to buy the shoes
instead of donating that money to an institution
that with it could possibly save the lives of even more than one kid?
This is why I want to invite you
to the possibility of re-thinking
consumption in terms of social impact
and also in terms of opportunity cost
of what is it that we stop spending our money in
when we in fact consume something else.
And to rethink to which kind of consumption by the others
it is that we will grant our recognition.
(Applause)