Spirit of Modern Consumerism - Literature review Example

Essays in Modern Consumerism Read Chapter 3 ‘The Puzzle of Modern Consumerism’ from Campbell’s book The Romantic Ethic and the Spirit of Modern Consumerism and answer the following questions: a) “...it is not consumption in general which poses special problems of explanation, so much as that particular pattern which is characteristic of modern industrial societies”. Referring to the text, explain in detail why ‘modern consumption’ is so puzzling according to Campbell. [800 words required; 805 total] Campbell states, “The mystery is more fundamental than any of these, and concerns the very essence of modern consumption itself—its character as an activity which involves an apparently endless pursuit of wants; the most characteristic feature of modern consumption being this insatiability.”1 In essence, people are a bottomless pit of desires. When one need is fulfilled, there is always going to be another need that pops up requiring attention. That is just the way humans are made. Not necessarily just physical needs need to be met—but rather, the accoutrement of things which humans seem to accumulate over the years one has spent living is a perfect example of this, especially in more developed countries. Consumption is so puzzling to Campbell especially because this insatiability for things is considered an ethnocentric phenomenon, in his view.2 For example, it is considered anathema in some cultures to want things outside of what one already has—not to mention blasphemous to try to attain things for the self. Any kind of achievements that are related to one “getting ahead” in life is not the norm in small communities. Rather, it is the importance of community that encapsulates one’s decisions—not the self-promotion and self-egotistical self-centeredness that is so evident in many Western cultures. This self-centeredness is puzzling not only because one knows one can “never have enough,” but this incessant search in the quest for one’s self-fulfillment—demonstrated in Western culture—is tantamount to blasphemy. In a small town somewhere off the beaten path, this kind of behavior would never be tolerated. This is because, in essence, in the cultures of many nations that are less-developed or not developed at all, community is a big part of who people are. These humble people who grew up with small beginnings are not willing to sell out their communities for fame. It is just not in their natures. What is in human nature, however—which apparently shows up more in Western cultures than not—is this idea of instant gratification and the search for self-actualization that is not found in many places that are rural where the people have less education and less money. Consumerism is a purely Western motif that has dominated today’s popular culture, especially in advanced countries like the UK. Moreover, it is completely unacceptable that we, the Western moderns, are getting unduly ahead of ourselves with regard to our ability to consume more and more. This is a trend that can and must be slowed, or we face a probable consequence that would be the result of our own greed: extinction. [431 words] b) Campbell critiques three methods of explanation for modern consumer behaviours (‘instinctivism’, ‘manipulationism’ and ‘the Veblenesque perspective’). What does he find problematic about each of these perspectives? Instinctivism is relegated by Maslow’s hierarchy of needs—but the problem Campbell has with this concept is that the pattern of wanting changes over a lifetime.3 This argument is made—and perhaps rightly so—in the vein that if such wants were biologically inherent, then why does the human’s necessities change over time. For example, what makes Billy eventually want a plasma TV as a 30-year-old husband versus a 5-year-old Billy wanting to create and eat a mudpie? It seems an absurdity that such “wants” would be, therefore, instinctive. Otherwise, wouldn’t everyone have a hierarchical category of wants that would include the evolution from wanting to eat mudpies to the latent want of owning a plasma TV, on some level? Truly, Campbell makes a sensible point. The second method for explaining consumerism, manipulationism, is debunked due to three factors, the most convincing one perhaps being that people do not blindly develop wants only because they have seen TV commercials advertising for a specific product.4 This basically means that, anyone who has a functioning brain is not going to necessarily just go out and buy whatever is advertised to that person. Humans have the capacity to be manipulated, surely, but that is not the point. Manipulationism stipulates that the person is being manipulated into doing something. Although the power of the almighty television is great, the TV cannot make anyone do anything. Said plainly, individuals make their own choices to buy or not buy something based on a variety of reasons, and not just because someone on television told them to buy something or do something based on how wonderful a product is advertised. People still have the capacity, in this computer age, to think for themselves—and that is what makes the manipulationism theory so suspect, and rightly so. Veblenesque thought relies on the fact that products are not just about how they “come to be made but how they take on meaning.”5 This is an unfavourable view, one of Campbell’s strongest points against it being that Veblenesque theory only provides an explanation of the insatiable wants of a person.6 In that sense, although consumption is attained through competition sometimes, this cannot be confused with imitation, which also occurs and which may explain consumerism. [374 words] 1. Now read the extract from Chapter 5 ‘Modern Autonomous Imaginative Hedonism’ and answer the following question: How is the ‘spirit of modern consumerism’ related to the specifically modern practice of ‘day-dreaming’ and with what consequences? [700 words required; 700 words total] According to Campbell, “Walter Mitty’s ‘secret life,’ as revealed in the original, very short, sotry by James Thurber, is the existence which he creates for himself in his imagination.”7 Truly, the ability to and act of consuming, like daydreaming, are all leisures. When one walks through a store or otherwise goes window-shopping during the holidays, taking in the sights and daydreaming about what one might buy if one had the capital to do so, this is a form of consumerism which requires daydreaming. Of course, daydreaming and consumerism don’t always go together. However, they are both deal with one’s fancies. Daydreaming in and of itself is a selfish pleasure. One has a second world into which one can frolick and play, doing whatever one wishes—in the recesses of the mind. Similarly, being caught up in a consumeristic culture has its drawbacks as well in terms of the fact that it is essentially a self-centered exercise. When one buys something for the want of oneself, this could be considered selfish. Daydreaming is also selfish, in a way, as it robs one of the time that could be devoted to more purposeful activities, or being more useful in waking life. Both daydreaming and consumerism are ways in which one can exhibit one’s own personal druthers—ways in which one can fulfil one’s own needs without having to think about someone else’s. In this regard, both daydreaming and consumerism can be taken to the extreme, especially when they are combined. For example, if a very rich man built a house all for himself and then decided to spend most of his waking life daydreaming, he would be living in a fantasy-land. It is this kind of unorthodox thinking that makes the rich look rather absurd at times because they are so caught up in their own menagerie of self-absorbed hedonism. The consequences of daydreaming itself can be dire. Nothing gets done, reality is completely thrown out the window; fortunes can be lost when people spend time moping about and having their eyes fixed on a prize or a fantasy that is far-off in the distance. Nevertheless, people daydream all the time. The consequences could include getting fired from a job because of daydreaming on the job, losing one’s marriage because one is trapped in a world full of fantasy, and the destruction of positive personal relationships due to excessive indulgences in reverie. Obviously, for some people, daydreaming is not a leisure but a necessity. They have fantasies about what car they will drive, who they will marry, where they will live, how much money they will make, and so forth. It is the latent self-actualization of these fantasies that are never realized which causes much distress as well. Evidently, wanting something and having it are two different elements. The consequences of daydreaming can include the ultimate destruction of one’s life, having let real life pass one by over time. Daydreaming, specifically, is different from having goals and wanting to succeed in life. However, dreaming excessively in waking life about what is going to happen in the future can be extremely detrimental and is not advisable. Indulging in the cardinal sin of consumerism could be equally if no less dangerous than daydreaming. Filling one’s house with goods and services that serve one’s own purpose can be tantamount to daydreaming, feeling that whatever one has, no matter how much of it one has or how good it is, must be increasingly replaced with more, bigger, newer, and better. It is this striving for more and more, filling that seemingly endless abyss, which drives many people into the ground trying to “succeed,” or in other words live that ideal dream in which one pictures oneself having everything that is shiny, new, and of the best quality. However, one consequence of having an attitude like this is the false notion that the person with the most toys wins. This is simply not how life works, and one can’t take it with one after all is said and done and one is deceased. Therefore, these factors should be taken into account when one is trying to consume as much as humanly possible. Life is not a race. [700 words] 2. Now read the chapter ‘Language’ from Deyan Sudjic’s book The Language of Things and answer the following question: How far does Campbell’s and/or any other relevant theory help us to understand the role of design in promoting modern consumption? [600 words required; 636 words total] Sudjic “…purchase[d] [a laptop] based on a set on a set of seductions and manipulations that was taking place entirely in [his] head, rather than in physical space.”8 Campbell’s theory that “…modern consumption is characteristically ‘luxury’ consumption…” is dead-on correct.9 An object, like a laptop, could definitely be considered a luxury. Many people in the world, if they are lucky enough to own computers, still do not have laptops. As such, this idea in the author’s mind that he subconsciously needed a laptop perhaps influenced and reinforced the idea to purchase one—especially such a whimsical purchase in an airport. It is with this in mind that one remembers that, with purchases of spontaneity, comes the consideration of the role of design in promoting modern consumption. For example, Sudjic mentions how world-class architects are hired to design bastions of stores which exemplify and exude class, making shoppers’ eyes practically pop out of their heads. Such ribald regality is intentional, in making the shopper feel as though he or she is in a parallel universe akin to the heighths of luxuriousness. Such design is deceiving. For, just as much as one may want to buy a product, the package that it comes in is 90% of the ruse. For example, if one were buying candles, would someone be more interested in buying a candle that had a smartly pretty pink bow and incense attached to it or a ragamuffin-looking candle in a plain cardboard box? Here, the choice is evidently obvious. One would choose the candle that smelled and looked nice. Why is this? It is so because presentation is important. The way an object is packaged is extremely cogent. How something is presented can make a buyer want to buy something or can repulse the buyer. Perhaps more obviously, the intent of any type of good marketing with regard to ambience is to visually stun the buyer. If asked to choose—would it be more pleasant to walk down a dank, dark, hallway, or a well-lit marble foyer complete with Dorian columns, wending marble staircases, and vaulted ceilings? Again, the answer is obvious. People like flashy things and they also, consequentially, are consumeristic in the sense that they want to be dazzled. In this regard, it is extremely particularly necessary that designers kept this in mind when creating a space for customers. The goal for them is to make consumers want to spend and participate in that consumption of the masses. Truly, the way a place is designed says volumes about the person who designed it as well. Is the place classy? Then surely, some people assume, “This place must have been designed by someone with a touch of class, therefore I would like to shop here,” or so goes the thinking. Design speaks volumes about ambience and the intended effect. Would customers want to shop in a small, cramped space, or would they want to have plenty of room to try on hats and scarves, and see how those handbags look hanging off their arms? Again, the answer is rather simple: customers always want that which positively benefits themselves. Thus, design must be taken into account when one is trying to encourage the consumer to spend. The designer must put himself or herself in the place of the consumer, and try to imagine what the practical consumer would ideally like—even if it were to be a bit extravagant—because, ultimately here, designers are usually aiming for targeting consumers who have more cash to spend. Thus, designers are very ingenious at designing ambiences suited to their particular customer’s palate, and as such must know and promote their brands with taste and class. Otherwise, all the design in the world will not lure customers in without good ideas, solid planning, and a flare for the creative. [636 words] REFERENCES Campbell, Colin. The Romantic Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. London: Alcuin, 2005. Sudjic, Deyan. The Language of Things: How We Are Seduced By the Objects Around Us. London: Allen Lane, 2008. Read More