Value of Rubbish in a Consumer Society - Essay Example

?Harris Kamran Psychology Analytical Paper 22 July Value of Rubbish in a Consumer Society The social framework of a modern society has become increasingly dynamic in the recent years. The ideals, values, norms, and concepts concerning society have been perpetually evolving, changing, and being redefined to suit the mindsets and lifestyles of the members of society (Hetherington 2009). Although this process has always been undergoing in one way or another, in the recent years, especially since the late 1800s (Hetherington 2009: 45), there has been a rapid increase in the rate of this social change and development (Hetherington 2009: 45). Many factors have contributed to this phenomenon, such as industrialisation, economic growth and affluence (Brown 2009: 108), easy availability of education and better opportunities, and a growing array of options and exposure to improved and varied choices (Hetherington 2009: 29). Social scientists and sociologists have extensively studied the impact of these changes on different sociological levels, trying to explain the reasons behind these shifts in attitude, their targets, implications in both the negative and positive sets, and predictions based on these changes regarding the trends that might be observed in the future (Hetherington 2009: 30). Such studies are important in the fields of economics, politics, sociology, business and marketing, and many other disciplines which are directly or indirectly linked to the way in which people behave and operate (Hetherington 2009: 30). This paper purports to trace the evolution of the present day society in terms of changes in trends of consumption, and the implications of those shifting trends regarding the perception of rubbish in the society produced as a result of consumption. The present day society can be safely labeled as a consumer society (Hinchliffe 2009: 12), based on observations of the trends in the spending habits of the people and the acquisition of commodities (Hinchliffe 2009: 12). Spending money to fulfill needs through shopping is a basic requirement of a sustainable lifestyle (Hinchliffe 2009: 11), and this phenomenon alone does not merit a society as a consumer society. Rather, it is the underlying reasons for spending that money on commodities, the kind of commodities that people acquire, and the mindset with which they perceive the act of shopping and consumption that determines whether a society can be deemed as consumption oriented or non-consumption oriented (Hinchliffe 2009). This is not to state that the present day society in the U.K. is not capitalist in nature anymore (Hetherington 2009: 35); it continues to be capitalist, however, the lifestyle that was previously available to only a select few who formed the elite of the society is now more widely available to the masses, who can now enjoy the same luxuries and opportunities with an easy and more readily accessible approach (Hetherington 2009: 35). The difference between the trends of the 1880s (Hetherington 2009: 45) and the present day attitude towards shopping has greatly changed from the aim of getting what is needed to that of what the consumer wants and desires (Hinchliffe 2009: 14); that is, consumption is no more merely need-based; it is now a statement of an individual’s personality (Hetherington 2009: 50), and an attempt at socialization and maintenance of higher social standing (Hetherington 2009: 50). Shopping has become a pastime and leisure, and consumption is driven by excess and affluence (Brown 2009: 108). This has important implications as regards to the waste and rubbish that such an attitude generates, and its effects on the environment and economy (Brown 2009: 123). These issues will be considered shortly. The shifting trends have much to do with the shifts in the ontology of values in the society. The term value can be interpreted in many ways, depending on the context in which it is used. An article can have value in many different senses, and can be valuable and worthless at the same time, or for different people, albeit in the same context, depending upon their perception (Brown 2009: 113). If it is economically viable, it can have an economic value, for example, collectibles and antiques (Brown 2009: 113). If it can be utilised in some activity, it is of value with regard to utility, even when it is not economically expensive (Brown 2009: 113), for example household appliances and everyday goods and groceries.. Some articles and commodities are awarded ‘intrinsic value’ (Brown 2009: 113) because of their nature. Even emotional values can be attached to possessions and goods, like gifts and heirlooms. If an object portrays a certain sense of style and status, then it can be turned into a status symbol, for example, expensive automobiles, wrist watches, perfumes, and designer clothes (Brown 2009: 113). Some are aesthetically valuable (Brown 2009: 113), like paintings and other works of art. The value that is associated with an object is not static, but changes with time. What might be considered to be precious or rare at one point may later on be abundantly available in the markets, such as was the case with cellular phones (Hetherington 2009: 33), which started out to be available to a select stratum of society, but now have become an integral part of the lifestyle at all social levels (Hetherington 2009: 33). The more the society consumes, the more waste and rubbish it produces (Brown 2009). This rubbish is closely associated with the consumption habits of the people and the value with which they regard it (Brown 2009). It is obvious that rubbish and waste are viewed generally with revulsion and disapproval (Brown 2009), and are considered to be worthless and of no value whatsoever (Brown 2009). This perception holds true globally. It is not ill-founded, either. Rubbish is the end-product, a necessary evil, of consumption, and should be discarded (Brown 2009). It can not be utilised per se, it has no economic value, no aesthetic allure, no emotional attachment or involvement with the consumer, and as such is of no value to the people (Brown 2009). In fact, it exerts a negative economic effect on the society, for where it does not provide any monetary benefits to the consumer, its disposable requires money, and so it is a burden on the economy of the consumer (Brown 2009: 145). This means rubbish is disvalued. The given argument, however, is just one aspect of the issue. It is true that rubbish is disvalued, but it can be revalued as well (Brown 2009). There are several ways in which this can be achieved. The best method is that of recycling (Brown 2009: 127). Through the process of recycling, the worthless rubbish is turned into goods that have utilisation value (Brown 2009: 127) . Moreover, it reduces the cost of production of commodities by providing a pretreatment raw material, hence, overall reducing the price of commodities (Brown 2009: 127). Therefore, it can be said to have an economic value as well (Brown 2009: 127). The process of recycling is, however, labor-intensive, and is only feasible in countries where the cost of labor is cheap (Brown 2009: 127). Hence, huge amounts of rubbish are often shipped to countries like China where they are recycled and transported back to, for instance, U.K. (Brown 2009: 127). This gives rise to internationalization and global trade (Brown 2009: 127), therefore, imparting political value to the generation of rubbish. Sometimes, rubbish can be transformed into aesthetically pleasing articles we well (Brown 2009: 139). Incredible as it may sound, the practice of Junk Art (Brown 2009: 139) has made this possible. Art pieces like ‘My Bed’ (1998) (Emin, cited in Brown 2009: 139) and ‘ Plastic Cups’ (2008) (Jordan, cited in (Brown 2009: 140) are good examples of such a transformation of rubbish into aesthetically sound products. This affords further value to it (Brown 2009: 139). It is evident that the perception of value associated with rubbish in a consumer society changes with the chaining awareness, trends, needs, and social development (Brown 2009). Much of this shift from devaluation to revaluation of rubbish has come about due to a growing concern for the environment (Brown 2009: 123). The ecological debt (Brown 2009: 124) has been alarmingly increasing, forcing governments and societies to reconsider their attitude towards consumption, and the subsequent generation of rubbish and its handling (Brown 2009: 124). This evolution is also in accordance with Thompson’s rubbish theory (Brown 2009: 130), in which he states that the value of an article is dynamic, and undergoes the shifts from being valuable, to being disvalued and then revalued (Thompson, cited in Brown 2009: 130). This applies both to commodities and the attitude of the consumers towards those commodities. Generation and devaluation-revaluation of rubbish also falls under this category (Brown 2009: 130). Bibliography Allen, J. 2009. One-stop shopping: the power of supermarkets, in Making Social Lives, edited by Stephanie Taylor, Steve Hinchliffe, John Clarke, & Simon Bromley. Malta: Gutenberg: 61-106. Brown, V. 2009. Rubbish society: affluence, waste and values, in Making Social Lives, edited by Stephanie Taylor, Steve Hinchliffe, John Clarke, & Simon Bromley. Malta: Gutenberg: 107-153. Hetherington, K. 2009. Consumer society? Shopping, consumption and social science, in Making Social Lives, edited by Stephanie Taylor, Steve Hinchliffe, John Clarke, & Simon Bromley. Malta: Gutenberg: 17-60. Hinchliffe, S. 2009. Introduction: Material Lives, in Making Social Lives, edited by Stephanie Taylor, Steve Hinchliffe, John Clarke, & Simon Bromley. Malta: Gutenberg: 9-16. Read More