Shopping Malls as Forces of Control - Essay Example

Shopping Malls as Forces of Control Introduction Most sociologists define shopping as nothing more than a consumption activity; however, much research illustrates that the activity is more complex than that. Shopping malls can be construed as instruments of control. They seduce and draw in clients who have economic value to mall owners. On the other hand, they may be perceived as facilities that lock out vulnerable groups. The utilisation of shopping malls may thus be construed as a sociological experience. How shopping malls control visitors Shopping mall designs A shopping mall could either be regarded as multifunctional or unifunctional. Multifunctionality refers to the successful combination of urban functions within a physical structure through the use of certain sociological aspects (Csaba et. al., 1999). The structure of a shopping mall is multifunctional in that it consists of more than one use, but this occurs in a planned way. Segregation and exclusivity are the reverse of multifunctional structures, so places with such qualities may be defined as unifunctional. Specialised places like educational centres, cultural centres and offices are examples of unifunctional groups. The separation of multifunctional and unifunctional purposes is what motivated the creation of shopping malls in history. These were facilities that were created with the sole purpose of selling. The trader must be placed in a situation where the redefinition of the urban environment allows for new and pleasant experiences. Such an approach ensures success on the part of the vendor. When shopping malls are perceived as multifunctional, then they become centres of shopping rather than buying. The latter two terms are quite distinct in the minds of mall architects. Buying occurs when the consumer already knows what they want. On the other hand, shopping occurs when the buyer has ample time on their hands. They tend to have some spare funds that they can use in these settings. They may also wonder about aimlessly in the mall. Shopping differs from buying because patrons may have an idea about what they want but will be open to some stimulation; conversely, buying involves simply exchanging money for goods or services. Unplanned purchases are common, and so are emotional connections to what they see (Palmer, 1991). Mall architects usually aim to induce a dream-like state in their facilities; here they cause visitors to feel free within the promises. A person may stroll, walk and look around the space. On occasion, this may inspire them to stop and indulge with older friends. They may also create new social contacts if they wish. Some may choose to sit at a restaurant or cafe in order to look at others and discover new things. All the above characteristics coalesce together to make malls centres for attracting individuals. The ability to meet consumers’ desires and needs are intended on causing sales. Architects push shoppers to do more than just purchase items. They come into those areas for the experience. Shopping malls thus differ from typical merchandisers or traditional markets because they have a long-term view. Sellers would only focus on short-term promotional activities. On the other hand, shopping malls are able to seduce buyers by their ability to focus on the future. They promise buyers a sense of delight by harmonising both private as well as public interests. It is in this category that they have their greatest effect (Stillerman, 2012). Design patterns in malls are such that they propel shoppers into purchasing more than they had initially planned. One is likely to find multi-level arrangements in almost all such structures. Additionally an escalator going down is rarely placed alongside one going up. Most times, one may have to walk across a number of stores in order to get to the other escalator. This is a tactic that mall owners use in order to get buyers to access or see more things. It is likely that individuals may be propelled to buy more things as they see them. The nature of services offered at malls or businesses found is also a relatively standard menu. A proper mall must have ATM machines and food courts. It needs to have cinema halls as well as large department stores and smaller, relatively unknown ones. Additionally, most of them serve as venues for various social events. ATM machines are available in order to encourage people to purchase as much as they want. They take away the anxiety and perhaps social controls that a shortage of funds would put on buyers. Once again, shoppers are controlled without any knowledge of the same (Low, 2000). Furthermore, food courts are another strategy for keeping consumers within the premises. Individuals would only spend a minimal amount of time in a mall if they grew hungry and had little room to eat and relax. Architects have already thought about these needs and met them. Even the organisation of events reverberates with these objectives as it gives people from different demographic groups a reason to visit the facilities. Almost all shopping mall owners have realised that it takes more than a landlord-mindset to succeed in the business. Instead, they think of themselves as pacemakers. Innovations in the locations are what propel individuals to spend more time there. For instance, a roof can be transformed into a drive-in theatre. This way, mall visitors may plan on leaving but could be convinced to stay longer than they had anticipated owing to these attractions. Class divisions Not only is the design a force to be reckoned with in these spaces, but the use of devices intended to control also supports this notion. Surveillance cameras and other technological devices are currently available in almost all shopping malls. Consumers are aware of this relatively high form of surveillance since security centres can never be missed in any of these institutions. A person can be accused of suspicious behaviour if surveillance footage shows that they are not indulging in shopping. Other encounters that fall outside this predefined function could land a visitor in trouble. As a result, individuals are pushed into doing only that which is allowed in the location. They are thus controlled through technological means (Wang et. al., 2010). As stated in the introduction, shopping malls are closed to certain groups of people even though the majority have access to them. Homeless people, beggars and drunken individuals are generally prevented from entering into these areas. Owners ensure that such persons do not enter through vigilant security at the entrance. This makes shopping malls segregation centres because regardless of their public status, these facilities only focus on those who have economic value to its economic stakeholders. Furthermore, the owners of these premises often attempt to sanitize their establishments. They get to decide which encounters will be permissible and which ones will not. Their narrow definitions of what constitutes civility are what carry the day. These commercial centres tend to accommodate only particular classes of consumers. They must come from income brackets that fit their proprietor’s wants. They perpetuate class selection, and this serves to cause division within the entire population (Langman, 2007). It encourages people to replicate divisions that are already evident in other urban spaces, such as residential areas. The subtle messages merchants send to consumers also prove that shopping malls define social experiences and thus control individuals. An establishment with a relatively small window is one that discriminates against certain patrons. Jewellers or other high-end sellers have minimal space to accommodate individuals. Therefore, they want to discriminate as many individuals as possible. They literally send the message that one is not welcome inside. The high-end seller already assumes that average mall visitors cannot afford their merchandise. It would be in their best interest to allow only a marginal number of consumers in. This sort of discrimination places consumers in categories. Those deemed as average are usually invited unreservedly by smaller sellers. Conversely, such people are unwanted by the pricier seller, so they often have storefronts that are relatively uninviting. Once again this controls urban environments and perceptions of the same in order to take on these differences (Blackmar, 2006). The manner in which police officers and other law enforcers perceive shopping malls may indicate the extent of the division. Diverse communities are becoming the order of the day in the United Kingdom. However, police still think of threats to public safety in very conservative ways. Their reasoning is a reflection of universal values concerning public conduct. They tend to assess people on the basis of whether they are engaging in illegitimate activities or not. Police have the job of protecting commercial establishments. Therefore, if a person is incapable of carrying out commercial activities for one reason or another, the police will be expected to act in accordance with their mandate. However, since they are also supposed to cater to the social needs of people in shopping malls, this puts them at odds with vulnerable or marginalised groups as they are likely to disfavour those who do not yield commercial gain. Mall etiquette Perhaps another dimension that shows control from higher authorities is the lack of awareness of other shoppers. Most people rarely direct their interactions towards strangers. They tend to respect each others’ right to do what they came to do. Therefore, visitors may not completely ignore each other. Further, they tend to think of other people’s needs, so they may take the time to avoid bumping into each other. Under particular circumstances, shoppers could engage in some form of restrained assistance. For instance, if a person wanted to know the time or find directions to a new place, they could get this information from their counterparts. However, few people will do more than the above. No one knows why people behave in this manner, but it could be because there are consequences to alterations of behaviour. Deviation from the shopping norm could lead to unwanted consequences. In a certain way, shopping malls may be perceived as locations that constrain social relationships. Because of the above behavioural patterns, it is rare for people to express themselves freely in these locations. It is not possible to conduct a political meeting at a shopping mall. Additionally, people are not allowed to lobby for social or political policies. This makes malls different from other public areas like streets and car parks. Their owners control shoppers’ activities simply by preventing them from interacting in this manner. Since shopping malls are such a central part of people’s lives, it may be argued that they limit freedom of speech (Shaftoe, 2008). A series of shopping etiquette rules affect visitors in these establishments regardless of where they are. If a shopper happened to see someone they know, it is likely that they will walk over to them and talk to them in low tones. One may be frowned upon if they shout an individual’s name across the mall. Alternatively, if a person wanted to move their car, it would be relatively rude for them to shout at other car owners even if they possess certain differences. Conclusion Shopping malls control the public, but achieve this in a latent manner. First, their design is meant to lure individuals into the establishment and to keep them inside for as long as possible. Furthermore, shopping-mall landlords sell more than merchandise in their establishments; they sell ideas. People do not know that deliberate efforts have been made to get them to behave exactly how mall owners want them to. This starts form establishment of mall etiquette and the presence of security guards or law enforcers. The overall effect of these norms is that it pushes individuals to only concentrate on consumer-based activities. Shopping malls also control society at a deeper level by reinforcing class division. Venerable groups like homeless people are not welcome in these facilities. Therefore, their liberty to use public spaces has been curtailed. In essence, political activities rarely take place in malls since they are simply not permitted. This works in the best interest of the owners because it condenses every activity to a commercial one. Freedom of expression is thus curtailed through the above strategy as well as through surveillance cameras. References Blackmar, E., 2006. Appropriating "the commons": the tragedy of property right discourse. Pp. 49-80 in The Politics of Public Space, edited by Setha Low and Neil Smith. NewYork: Routledge. Csaba, F. and Askegaard, S., 1999. Malls and the Orchestration of the Shopping Experience in a Historical Perspective, in NA - Advances in Consumer Research, 26, eds. Eric J. Arnould and Linda M. Scott, Provo, UT : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 34-40. Langman, L., 2007. Shopping malls. Chicago: Blackwell. Low, S., 2000. On the plaza: the politics of public space and culture. Austin: University of Texas Press. Palmer, D., 1991. Local Government and Policing Public Space. Socio-Legal Bulletin, 5, pp. 18-19. Shaftoe, H., 2008. Convivial urban spaces, creating effective public spaces. London: Earthscan. Stillerman, J., 2012. Transposing the urban to the mall. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 41(3), pp. 309-336. Wang, H., Savy, M. and Zhai, G., 2010. Territorial Evolution and Planning Solution: Experiences from China and France. Paris: Atlantis Press. Read More