Casey Anthony and the Culture of Self-indulgence

Many of you are undoubtedly familiar with the facts surrounding this case, as well as Ms. Anthony's recent acquittal of all charges — with the exception of lying to law enforcement officers. The question surrounding the merit of the verdict notwithstanding, I thought it would be interesting to explore the inescapable cultural dimensions surrounding this entire affair. In my opinion, such constitutes one of the principle aspects of what shaped Casey Anthony as the sort of superficial, self-absorbed creature she is.

Obviously, I am not so dense as to suggest that a culture (even one as abhorrent as American bourgeois culture is) made Ms. Anthony into what she is. However, there can be no doubt that it certainly enabled her worst qualities to assert themselves without them appearing to be as conspicuously sociopathic as they truly were. After all, at the surface level, she merely appeared to be engaging in a lifestyle common to many people within her age bracket. No one thought her capable of any serious harm.

Of course, her life assumed a contradictory character once she was 'burdened' with the responsibility of parenthood. No longer could she exclusively dedicate her life's pursuits to self-gratification. Functionally incapable of transcending an emphasis on anything but her own capricious self-interest (or what Ayn Rand might refer to as the characteristics of a 'Superman'), she acted in such a way as to remove that 'obstacle'. The consequence is a dead child.

This sordid affair was conceived by the merging of this obscene self-interest doctrine, which you have rightly extrapolated, and the consumerist monoculture which indulges it. When we live in a society that not only desperately strives and demands that we indulge our every materialistic craving but requires this as a basis for its own "healthy" continuation, then I do not see how we can reasonably deny that such scenarios as the Casey Anthony case must be in large part the indirect results (the hidden costs or "externalities") of this social system.

At the risk of diverting the conversation to a slight degree, I wish to point to how this self-interest doctrine allows the bourgeois economists to abstract almost entirely from the class nature of our societies (to deny it outright, even) whilst simultaneously manufacturing a theoretical model that allows the capitalist to conceal exploitation by focusing inordinately upon "consumer sovereignty." You see, when our economic system is interpreted in such a way that the "consumer is king" (that is, when the consumer is the primary beneficiary of production) rather than an individual whose desires and expectations are not only shaped by society (i.e., the capitalist), but chained to its mode of production, it becomes possible for the capitalist to justify his soulless pursuit of profit on the grounds of bettering society—of fattening it. We are all well aware that the phrase following the dash is not merely a figurative expression.

I wish to expound upon this topic at a later time because of time constraints. (It's nearly 5 A.M. here.)