Baumans Comparison between the Producer Society and the Consumer Society - Essay Example

Bauman’s Comparison between the Producer Society and the Consumer Society Introduction According to Zygmunt Bauman,in the producer society, the members are considered to be involved in the production whereas, in the consumer society, they are involved in the consumption of goods and services. Bauman describes the nature of the consumer society in three stages; the late-modern, the second-modern and the post-modern societies. Weber, a Marxist theorist, describes the ideal nature of the society. The ideal type discussed in this case involves the comparison of the producer society with the modern society. The ideal type is not the best, but, typical or logical features of both societies. Bauman addresses the issue of consumer and producer society in accordance to Weber’s concept of the ‘ideal type’ since he does not refer to any society as the best. The development of the old producer society to the modern consumer society has various implications to people’s levels of satisfaction and happiness. For example, the individualism in the modern consumer society seems to satisfy people more than the work-based producer society. In Europe, today, most people are focusing their spending on luxury goods to satisfy themselves, and this is different in the past, where goods are bought for a particular purpose (Bauman 2010, p. 113). Differences between the producer society and the consumer society The first difference between the two societies is that, in the producer society, members participate in work for the growth of the entire society, whereas, in the consumer society, consumption is a key role played by people in the society. According to Bauman, the producer society shapes its members to play certain roles such as farming and provision of security that ensures societal growth. The members were dictated to perform tasks so as to satisfy the communities’ needs. In the old capitalist society, in a marriage, men ought to provide for their families and the women were to maintain the family wealth, as well as, remaining submissive to their husbands for life. The consumer society has changed some norms in the old producer society, through allowing the members to do, as they please. Today, the consumer society is not much concerned about what a person is doing, and people have been observed to focus much on consumption than production. In the modern consumer society, no one is dictated to perform certain tasks and the members work hard for their betterment in life. The society will never judge those who decide not to work. The consumer society has improved the happiness to its members such that one can acquire as much wealth as he/she can and consume as he/she pleases. For the last two decades, the sociologists have been trying to change the definitions political or social theories in the consumer society. The postmodern sociologists criticize the traditional views on economic, social and political issues. For example, some critiques do not agree on Bauman’s description of the producer society as solid modernity. According to them, modernity is associated with innovations and transformations of the society (Bauman 2010, p. 115). In the producer society, the purchased goods had a particular purpose that promoted the performance of tasks in the society. In the consumer society, the goods are purchased to satisfy an individual’s needs. Also, the spending in the consumer society has included luxury goods among the rich leaving the poor in abject poverty (Scholes 2013, p. 56). The producer society promoted members’ hard work for the welfare of the entire society. Although there are cases of individualism in the producer society, the members had almost equal opportunities in the society. Ernst Bloch explains the visions of the western culture, to establish departmental stores and increase advertising of goods and services. According to Bauman, goods bought in the producer society for a particular purpose. In the consumer society, the power of advertisements has increased spending among people. Through market liberalization, individuals have established shopping malls, departmental stores and hypermarkets in towns and cities. Today, people usually operate using plastic money when they are paying bills, shopping and in entertainment. The consumer society deserves to spend much because, the producer society had targeted for this new behavior. In the consumer society, the freedom of choice in spending of one’s money has integrated the level of satisfaction and joy to some people whereas to the poor people, they remain unhappy (Dawson 2013, p. 143). According to Bauman, the stratification of the consumer society into social classes, that is, the rich and the poor is not justifiable because it renders some people to suffer. The consumer society does not determine the status of a member in that society. Giddens supports the stratification of the consumer society as he argues that; consumer spending is related to an individual’s identity. Giddens’ theory of reflexivity is essential as it supports the notion of consumers in their spending. One will try to increase consumption in order to retain his/ her identity. The producer society, on the other hand, shapes its members to perform tasks as an attempt to ensure minimal or no wealth disparity. The freedom among the members in the consumer society has allowed the creation of social classes; the “high up” and the “low down” that has led to abuse of the poor by the rich. The stratification in the modern consumer society has increased the joy to the rich whereas the poor are sorrowful (Jacob and Poder 2008, p. 198). In the producer society, the members ought to work hard and increase the prosperity of the community, as well as, promoting democracy in state functions. Due to freedom in the society, the culture of hard work has been eroded where people can opt not to work and still survive. The freedom of participation in state functions has made some people dominate everything such that one is not free to express his/her own views. Bauman’s address on liquid modernity argues that, the citizens in the post modern society are not recognized because they are considered as consumers. The modern consumer society has shaped the ordinary people to obey the superpowers and hence the destruction of democracy. The loyalty to the state by citizens in the old producer society has declined since most oppressed people today, are up to destroy rather than building their nations. Most people no longer believe in democracy, because the appreciation to other people’s work has also declined (Kumar 2005, p. 131). The producer society promotes the collective responsibility of each member in the community work. According to Bauman, the society demands people to adhere to their duties such as working hard for the community’s prosperity as well as ensuring security of all the members of the society. Gramsci’s concept of hegemony supports that the stability of any society is achieved through combination of moral and intellectual responsibility of the members. Therefore, there is a need for collective responsibility in the society. The modern consumer society has focused on personal fulfillment, but, not the collective growth of the society. Take the case of insecurity in the consumer society. Insecurity has spread due to reduced collective responsibility among the people. People involved in terror attacks today, also participates in social functions. Very few people today, can report a terrorist suspect to the police due the loss of sense in collective responsibility that was advocated for, in the past, that is, in the producer society (Bauman 2013, p. 79). As Bauman argues that the producer society is solid whereas the consumer society is liquid, the issue of moral values satisfies the argument. In the old producer society, people in marriages were expected to be faithful to one another. Also, the family responsibility was divided where the man provided for the family and his wife remained submissive to him (Behdad and Thomas 2011, p. 123). The consumer society has lost the sense of peoples’ responsibility in their marriages. Also, due to liquidity in many aspects of life like in spending, citizens have gone far to change partners as they want and even engage in homosexuality. There is erosion of moral values in the consumer society where most people no longer respect the purity of marriage as the producer society required. The modern society has, therefore, increased the happiness to some people’s lives, since today, life is more about pleasure than performing the duties addressed in the past, such as, the family and community responsibility. Theorists in the post modern society claim that the technological changes deserve delivering pleasure to the members of the society. Additionally, there are rapid changes in the modern society such as high literacy levels that makes people understand and want to explore life. These theorists conclude that, more theories ought to be developed to define the social, cultural and economic systems of the modern society rather than basing the argument on pleasurable living among people (Smart 2003, p. 200). The producer society advocated for the provision of public goods and services by the state government, for example, education, health services and security. Every citizen had a share of the national cake. In the consumer society, privatizations of businesses have reduced the role of the state government in controlling the country’s operations. Privatization is part of market liberalization where willing buyers and sellers control the market. The services offered today can be expensive for some people meaning that they cannot afford to satisfy their needs. Therefore, the consumer society has allowed citizens’ exploitation due to increased privatization of goods and services, as well rejecting the responsibility of the state in the market (Council of Europe 2008, p. 45). The negative impacts of market liberalization to the society includes under provision of goods and services, high prices and exploitation of consumers by the monopolies. Although citizens enjoy services offered by the state government, the dominant private businesses determine the satisfaction of the citizens’ basic needs such as clothing, food and health services. The consumer society, therefore, has an impact to one’s level of satisfaction and happiness because the current market is liberalized and mostly satisfies the rich, but, exploiting the poor citizens (Erickson 2009, p. 38). The producer society has a Utopian vision that suggests that there should be equality for all citizens even in the future. There is the formulation of laws protecting human rights and the society believes in democracy. Ernst Bloch supports the nature of the producer society that, the Western culture had utopian visions yearning for a transformed society, as well as, a better world. After rejecting the solid producer society, the liquid modernists, get involved in politics that does not promote democracy. The modern consumer society has recognized only those with money power. The politicians, therefore, can determine their win in the outcomes of elections through bribery and corruption that was prohibited in the producer society. Citizens are no longer equal in the eyes of the law, and their human rights are usually violated due to little or no protection by the law. The consumer society’s failure to show democracy in the government lowers the dignity of the society, as well as, declining the level of satisfaction to the citizens. In the solid modernity, democracy was advocated for political, social and economic prosperity in the society. Today, most people feel frustrated when there is no democracy and the way the consumer society contributes to violation of their human rights (Davis 2013, p.78) Similarities between the producer and consumer societies The similarity between the producer society and the consumer society is that, the role of the members is to ensure that they work hard to satisfy their basic requirements such as food, clothes and shelter. The work-based society dictates to its members to perform various tasks in order to satisfy the primary wants. In the consumer society, despite the rejection of the old solid modernity, citizens are expected to work hard to satisfy their wants (Davis and Bauman 2008, p. 167). In both societies, one is encouraged to work and save, as well as, ensuring his/her personal development even in the future. Although, people today, engage in overspending by buying expensive luxury goods, the consumer society commands that, every person satisfies his/her own needs without depending on another person or institution (Bauman 2007 p. 45). Another similarity is that, both the producer society and the consumer society are guided and maintained by social, economic and political systems. In the producer society, the members participated in work for the prosperity of the community. The collective responsibility in societal practices maintained the welfare of the society members and thus enhancing cohesion (Garrett 2013, p.105). The consumer society, today, is also maintained by the political, economic and social systems. Despite the change from performing duties and obligations towards the society to individual fulfillment in the modern society, consumers also plays a role in economic sustainability in the society through their hard work. The political systems created in the consumer society contribute to the maintenance of the society despite the cases devaluation of democracy. Both consumer society and producer society undergo transformational change in their social, political and economic systems. In the producer society, the work-based practices were gradually transforming and that is why the post modern society have come into existence. The current consumer society also undergoes changes in its systems, for example, the economic systems will develop where the market liberalization will be regulated and ensure the welfare of all citizens. Another similarity between the societies is that, all members are consumers in both cases (Paula and Dymski 2005, p. 74). In conclusion, the development of the producer society has resulted to a consumer society that seems to increase the level of fulfillment and happiness to the members. Bauman describes that, the difference between the producer society and consumer society is based on the nature of flexibility and freedom of the members. In the producer society, the members are dictated to perform tasks for the welfare of the entire society. In this case, the member has little or no freedom and Bauman calls it “solid modernity” where the society follows some rules defined by historical parameters. In the consumer society, the members are free to choose what they want; there is individualization, and the society transform very fast. Bauman describes it as “liquid modernity” where it changes to new social and cultural shapes because no historical parameters define it. Some of the similarities between the producer society and the consumer society are that both undergo transformational changes in their political, economic and social systems. Both societies encourage their members’ hard work to satisfy their basic needs. The societies are maintained and guided by the political, economic and social issues. The members of the societies are consumers in both cases. References List Bauman, Z (2010). Liquid modernity and the Consumer Society. Cambridge, Policy Press. Bauman, Z (2013). Liquid Modernity. Hoboken, Wiley. Bauman, Z, (2007). Consuming life, Cambridge, Polity Press. Behdad, A & Thomas, D. .R D. (2011). A companion to comparative literature. Chichester, West Sussex, Wiley-Blackwell. Council of Europe (2008). Rethinking consumer behavior for the well-being of all: reflections on individual consumer responsibility, Strasbourg, Council of Europe Pub. Davis, M. & Bauman, Z (2008). Freedom and consumerism: a critique of Zygmunt Baumans sociology, Aldershot, England, Ashgate Pub. Davis, M. (2013). Liquid sociology: metaphor in Zygmunt Baumans analysis of modernity. Dawson, M. (2013). Late modernity, individualization and socialism an associational critique of neo-liberalism, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan. Erickson, M. (2009). Business in society: people, work and organizations, Cambridge, Polity. Garrett, P. M. (2013). Social work and social theory: making connections, Bristol, UK, Policy Press. Jacobsen, M. H. & Poder, P. (2008). The sociology of Zygmunt Bauman: challenges and critique, Aldershot, England, Ashgate. Kumar, K. (2005). From post-industrial to post-modern society new theories of the contemporary world, Malden, MA, Blackwell. Paula, S. D. & Dymski, G. (2005). Reimagining growth: towards a renewal of development theory, London; New York, Zed Books. Scholes, J. (2013). Vocation and the politics of work: popular theology in consumer culture. Smart, B. (2003). Economy, culture, and society: a sociological critique of neo-liberalism, Philadelphia, Pa, Open University. Read More