Brands draw from the activity of human life. They draw on the imagination and dreams by linking them to the extent of the capability to possess or consume. The brand is about to almost bury the identity of people as it is viewed as an alternative value to the self and its worth rather than being looked at as an added value.
The glamour which results from owning a brand carries emptiness within because it is related to purchasing a materialistic glamour that is not part of the self’s energy and that’s not related to the individual’s creations. A man thus drowns in a torrent of brands and he becomes haunted by the magic of these brands, from clothes to cars and other precious personal belongings.
They are of course tempting. They also dictate a certain approach on people as they end up engaged in some form of symbolic competition. These people’s reality thus turns into an arena for display where empty people compete using the brands they possess. The social status transforms into a continuous battle to defeat others by showing them their purchasing capacity and increasing their consumption. It is therefore a desire to possess a self-worth through materialistic possessions. This is the peak of bankruptcy.
The issue is not about mocking the brand or about steadily listing it as personal bankruptcy. There must be tools for understanding before getting involved in debates related to brands, and we must be careful of burying the self and breaking the centrality of humans in the world and thus have brands and themes occupy people’s minds. The brand must not be an alternative identity and it must not define a man’s worth and individuality.Fahad Suleiman Shoqiran