Week 3: Stories that Taught Us to Consume

Now for my thoughts on all our readings. I hope looking back on them from my vantage point of being at the end of the course can provide some unique musings on them. Well, at least different ones from the people who have been doing their homework properly, unlike me.

Other than Reenchantment of the World, we also had to read Stuart Ewen's Captains of Consciousness: Advertising and the Roots of Consumer Culture. This essay starts out with a bit of history that I'd like to recant. Henry Ford's development of the line production system in 1910 for assembling cars is cited as the source of a grand transformation in America; suddenly one was able to produce a lot more goods with less time and manpower than had to be used previously. Ten years later, more elaborate advertising techniques were devised in order to justify and perpetuate the productivity of the technology that developed.

Sprouting of mutant butterfly wings not included.

I've been pointing out for most of this course that our desire to consume is largely created in order to deal with our sudden increase in productivity due to the technology that was developed since the industrial revolution. This essay has got a lot of nice quotes that I can now use to illustrate my points if I were to ever write an essay on this or in case anyone wants to get in internet fisticuffs with me. I'd like to reproduce them here:

Consumptionism is the name given to the new doctrine; and it is admitted today to be the greatest idea that America has to give to the world; the idea that workmen and masses be looked upon not simply as workers and producers, but as consumers. . . . Pay them more,sell them more, prosper more is the equation. (Page 1)

Before mass production, industry had produced for a limited, largely middle and upper-class market. With a burgeoning productive capacity, industry now required an equivalent increase in potential consumers of its goods...The mechanism of mass production could not function unless markets became more dynamic, growing horizontally (nationally), vertically (into social classes not previously among the consumers) and ideologically. Now men and women had to be habituated to respond to the demands of the productive machinery. (Page 1-2)

As the question of expanding old and creating new markets became a function of the massification of industry, foresighted businessmen began to see the necessity of organizing their businesses not merely around the production of goods, but around the creation of a buying public. (Page 2)

The creation of “fancied need” was crucial to the modern advertiser. The transcendence of traditional consumer markets and buying habits required people to buy, not to satisfy their own fundamental needs, but rather to satisfy the real, historic needs of capitalist productive machinery. (Page 6)

The negative condition was portrayed as social failure derived from continual public scrutiny. The positive goal emanated from one’s modern decision to armor himself against such scrutiny with the accumulated benefits” of industrial production...The use of psychological methods, therefore, attempted to turn the consumer’s critical functions away from the product and toward himself. (Page 7)

I believe that in order to understand the present and decide what to do for the future, I think that knowledge of history is really important. The origins of something are necessary in order for you to understand it. By understanding that the desire to consumed is manufactured, you can properly set yourself on the path to combat its influence on you. There was also a point about how "economic freedom/democracy" is actually more about supporting our production systems. It was also interesting that they mentioned that focus shifted from the elite to the mass market because it was the surest way to justify costs and make a profit and not really out of any notion of fairness or equality.

I remember one of my economic professors saying that he had an appreciation for micro-economical theory, since it revolves around the belief that a person is rational and knows oneself. Attempts to mold and manipulate a consumer's perceptions of their needs and desires are therefore aberrations and perversions of a consumer's inner knowledge. However, we only studied this concept concerning situations in which a consumer must choose between goods, provided they don't go beyond their means. The consumer is seen as a powerful unit, but only within the system in which he is expected to help perpetuate.

But who knows what people will be teaching 100 years from now.

I suppose the Berman article acted as an introduction to the core idea of this article, that the psychological approach to advertising caused it to revolve around playing on our social insecurities. But to me, it came off as Berman saying that scientific thought is the core of selfishness and I don't believe that. I could have done without that article; I feel Captains of Consciousness illustrates how scientific analysis led to advertising's goal being to feed into our insecurities well enough on its own.

Also, there was Robert Putnam's 1995 essay, Bowling Alone. This essay suggests that America's social capital which it once took pride in is declining. This article serves somewhat of an introduction for themes of another upcoming week, in which we discussed the negative effect of consumerist media on people. Putnam suggests that there has been a reduction in in-person social interaction, which is the root of enriching lives.

He states that the reason for declining civic engagement is because we've found that we can't trust our politicians...and I would say he's pretty right about that.You can't really blame us. I remember talking to a friend of mine describing a political debate on television just being old people slinging insults at each other. Apparently that's what they think we want to see. People don't take part in politics because people feel that in spite of how democracy is supposed to be, we aren't getting heard. Plus, all those scandals and broken promises don't help. I remember a newspaper article talking about the same issue...I don't remember what it is now, and the writer stated that it isn't so much apathy that has led to decreased civic engagement, it's more of a form of protest. With potentially dangerous side effects to be sure.

A buffoon like Mitt Romney was actually allowed in the presidential race for Christ's sake.

Of course, Bowling Alone has come under criticism as well. One of them is that while traditional forms of social interaction that Putnam has studied, such as bowling leagues, have declined in membership, other forms of social interaction have risen up. You can check out Nicholas Lemann's Kicking in Groups for more on this concept. There's some research that suggests that Putnam was too U.S. of A-centric and that the social capital problem isn't as bad in other first world countries. Another criticism that's appeared is the that some of the social groups Putnam focused on are responsible for the repression of minorities and the prevention of equality. Like how the Boy Scouts of America discriminate against gays and how people use the church to repress and abuse women.

We also had to listen to a lecture titled: A Short History of Progress (Part 5): Rebellion of the Tools. Headed by Paul Kennedy, it tackles the ideas of Ronald Wright. His domain is primarily archaeology; he makes a point that with each fall of a major civilization, the damage becomes greater. He presents three kinds of crisis that lead to the collapse of a civilization: One where the issues escalate until they are unmanageable, hostility to change, and lastly, the system holding everything in place becomes overworked or too complicated and becomes vulnerable. He sites the innovation of agriculture, while allowing the human population to grow beyond what hunting/gathering would let it, as being the root of problems that exist today, mainly the concentration of power at the top resulting in a desire to maintain the status quo. Wright suggests the state of our civilization, which we think is normal and inevitable for all developing nations is an anomaly. We only have this society because Native American civilizations were weakened by the diseases brought over by the Europeans and unable to defend their societies.

Also, this lecture reminded me that Thanksgiving freaking sucks.

He states that these problems are often intertwined. In the history of humankind, civilization as we think of it is actually a relatively recent way of living and thinking, something I wouldn't have really realized as a teenager. Whenever I was writing an essay or speech, I used to like to make sweeping statements about our nature as a race, that with knowledge such as this, I eventually recognized were untrue. I've noticed some people, even my age, still talk using these grand statements, that traits that we think are wonderful are inherent in us and will always be. But in reality, we're a bundle of different instincts and messages from the outside, either encouraging or conflicting with each other. Wright even states that the reason humankind can be short-sighted is because we've spent so long as hunter-gatherers, living from day to day. Throughout history, and among cultures, there's so many different ways of thinking about things such as life, love, religion, art, etc. that you can't really say certain traits or beliefs stood true for all people for all time periods. If you're going to make claims, you better tell me how, what, when and why. Which is why I really appreciate this lecture and its historical and archaeological basis.

In this lecture and in readings in other weeks, evidence in presented that our society is showing the symptoms of a possible future collapse, such as the acceleration of world population growth and human shortsightedness leading to pollution and the depletion of resources in both the past and present. I especially noticed this when reading the ideas of Juliet Schor in preparation for my presentation. He also mentioned the failure of laissez-faire economics (or "Reganomics"), which I'm sure one of my past economics professors would appreciate, since he cites it as the source of inequality and the widening gap between the rich in the poor in America today. I always thought that with our technology, he had the ability to industrialize other nations without our mistakes, and it's good to see this opinion here.

He touches on the bizarre trend of evangelism x market extremism in the United States, which we focused on in another week, so I'll get to this theme later. He ends the lecture saying that the way to the future is not necessarily anti-capitalist. We just have to revolve our policies around thinking about the future, moderation and respect for the environment.

The religious/market extremists should have nothing to fear but they do.

The great American tragedy, people.