Affluenza: The new illness in Australia - Essay Example

 ‘Affluenza: The new illness in Australia?’ INTRODUCTION In the contemporary scenario, the perception of the Australian masses as to the amount of money that they need to live a fulfilled life is based less on the historical and international realities and more on their innate beliefs and desires. Australians associate happiness with affluence, which is not necessarily true. According to Clive Hamilton, more and more Australian families are attributing happiness to the possession of material entities. In the article ‘Affluenza: The new illness in Australia?’ published in Brisbane Line on 23 July 2005, Hamilton systematically intends to dissect this new social phenomenon. Though the article intends to support premises by quoting valid data, it fails to take into cognizance some basic realities of life. SUMMARY In ‘Affluenza: The new illness in Australia?’, Hamilton elaborates on the sense of insufficiency and discontent prevalent in the Australians, irrespective of the fact that not only Australia happens to be one of the richest countries in the world, but the citizens of Australia enjoy incomes and a life style that is far more sumptuous as compared to the people residing in other nations. In the start, Hamilton takes on the fact that the modern Australians tend to associate happiness with material attributes. Still, they happen to be generally discontented in a scenario in which all the available historical and international facts indicate that they are richer then their predecessors. The author then argues that unlike the days of the yore when material possessions were associated with basic needs and requirements, the contemporary Australians endow material entities like gadgets and cars with personal status and well-being. The appliances and gadgets are getting ultra-savvy and the sellers are taking advantage of the innate shortcomings and needs of the people to encourage them to buy latest goods. Hamilton emphatically deplores the fact that this craze for affluence and material goods is eating into the vital Australian attributes like a fundamental sense of equality, community spirit and general gregariousness. According to Hamilton, the modern Australians are more self centred and have little ability to extend their concern beyond personal comfort and desires. Under such circumstances, the negative feelings like jealousy, selfishness and discontent are rather encouraged and exploited by the vendors of material goods. As per Hamilton, the new trend of pursuing affluence at the cost of other values is not what the real Australian Civilization is all about. CRITIQUE One positive aspect of Hamilton’s article is that it supports the premises made by the writer with relevant and appropriate data. First Hamilton argues that the innate aspirations of the Australians often fail to match their real financial achievements. Once Hamilton makes this assertion, he supports his argument by quoting the related data showing that people often intrinsically correlate their financial aspirations with the financial statues of others instead of their actual requirements. For example, Hamilton states that the contemporary Australians tend to be more affluent as far as their possessions are concerned. Then he goes on to support this premise by presenting the historical data, which amply proves that the premises of Australian masses are more spacious and well equipped then those of their predecessors. In this context, Hamilton definitely intends to elaborate on the repercussions of Affluenza, as John de Graff does in his book ‘Affluenza’. He comes down on materialism in the same vein as Tim Kasser does in his book ‘The High Price of Materialism’. Hamilton also quotes data gathered from the Australian gadgets markets to reveal how the market forces play on the discontent of the Australians to make them buy modern gadgets and accessories. Despite presenting the real data, Hamilton’s article is not convincing because he fails to support his assertions with the apt scientific and psychological facts. The most obvious weakness of this article is that though Hamilton presents ample data, he mostly tries to interpret the factual evidence in the light of his personal beliefs and intentions. Hamilton seems to be biased in his interpretations of data as Less does in the article ‘Are we all Suffering from Affluenza?’ He seems to be bent on using the available data to detest consumption as Suzie does in the article ‘Affluenza: Is there a Cure?’ For example, Hamilton says that a majority of the Australians believe that they do not afford to buy everything they need and supports this conclusion with the results of the Newspoll survey. In the next step, Hamilton twists these facts to conclude that Australians believe that their incomes are inadequate. Now, it is a simple fact that no matter how rich a person is, there always exist some things that are beyond one’s budget. This does not mean that the person necessarily feels discontented or inadequate. In fact, many people believe that aspirations and desires to some extent encourage and motivate a person to perform well. Hamilton also argues that though the modern Australians have more spacious and well-equipped homes, they seem to be discontented and bolsters his argument with relevant data. Now, access to better and modern living conditions does not necessarily means that people are getting more covetous. The other weakness in Hamilton’s claims is that they are not backed by appropriate scientific and psychological evidence, a mistake committed by many other astute writers like Thane. For example, Hamilton states that the levels of desires of the Australians are continually on the rise due to the availability of the state of the art gadgets. It is a commonsensical fact that with each successive year, manufacturers do come out with gadgets that are more sophisticated and naturally, people prefer to buy the latest models. This in no way proves that the levels of desire of the masses are soaring unexceptionally. Besides, Hamilton fails to back this claim with any relevant scientific or psychological study. Hamilton argues that the advent of latest and costly barbeques has deteriorated the Australian social values. Again, he fails to present any relevant psychological study or research to support this premise. Hamilton also states that people buy latest gadgets and cars because of their insecurity and vanity, without quoting any factual or psychological evidence. Thus, Hamilton seems to be biased in the conclusions he made and fails to support them with some scientific evidence, unlike Oliver does in his article ‘Infected by affluenza’ published in the Guardian on 24 January 2007. CONCLUSION In conclusion, Hamilton appears to be misusing the available data to gain acceptance for his personal beliefs. In addition, Hamilton has made baseless and vague comments about the mentality and social values of the Australians, without backing them with the latest sociological or psychological studies. It is very absurd to comment on the propensities of an entire nation, without presenting any credible evidence. Works Cited Graff, John de. Affluenza. New York: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2002. James, Oliver. “Infected by Affluenza”. The Guardian. 24 January 2997. 4-5 Kasser, Tim. The High Price of Materialism. New York: The MIT Press, 2003. Less, C. “Are we all suffering from affluenza?” The Ethical Examiner. Spring 2008, 2-6. Suzie, Brown. “Affluenza: Is there a Cure?” Habitat Australia. August 2005. 7-8. Thane, Stenner. “Financial facts and money matters: Finding the cure for affluenza”. Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia. 2003, HighBeam Research. 7 Nov. 2009 Read More