Green Spandex

from nus.org.uk

What is it about a grown man in green spandex jumping around that makes us want to conserve electricity? It would seem that this alone would be an argument for seeing the consumer as irrational. But then again, people seem to respond to humor. As we saw with the social marketing campaigns this morning, the groups that used humor garnered the most votes.

To me, this points out that people respond to many different influences. Our decisions are not only the result of a cost-benefit analysis. I also see influences that go beyond the social psychology approach. I agree that we are in a constant dialogue with societal norms, and identity is a great example of this, but there seems to be something more that is directing us and limiting our choices. This is my nod ahead to the structural approaches for next week. The structures in which we live make a huge difference on how we behave and on the attitudes we hold. We have been raised in social structures and therefore have had our understanding of the world limited since we were first born. If we consider the way we treat babies, this may become clear. Why is it so important to differentiate the sex of a baby from the day it's born? I realize that for identification in a hospital, it helps, but when the baby is taken home, why does it matter if someone calls it a he or a she? I feel that it matters because we have preconceived understandings of what it means to be a boy or a girl, and  these understandings come from the overarching social structure which we call 'gender'.

These three approaches nestle nicely within each other like matroshka dolls - the structure approach forming the outer layer in which the others sit, then the social-psychology approach which constantly bumps up against the outer layer, and the rational choice approach - which only comes out in specific situations after working through the social-psychology (how can we rationally choose the Wheetabix or Frosted Flakes if we haven't decided what's important to us?).

Maybe this is where we're going with the class, maybe I'm completely off. We'll see if my opinion changes after the next round of seminars and lectures.

Consumption as Identity

The idea that consumption is identity was presented in the lecture and is also found in one of the readings for this week: "(Un)sustainable Consumption" by Burgess et al. This idea makes sense to me and I see it all around. An important part of identity creation is symbol use, and consumption can be a way of displaying symbols. Our shoes, the way we style our hair, our car (but also our bicycle or bus pass) are symbols that all send messages. We consume as a way to identify ourselves.

It gets interesting when we leave what is called our 'home' culture (where we are most comfortable and, usually, the place we identify with) and enter a new culture. The symbols are different, and what we present about ourselves doesn't always translate - or it does translate, but means something completely different. Also, in a new culture, it is hard to read people - to get a feeling for who they are and what they are saying about themselves - since we don't understand the symbols they are using.

The trouble comes when we want consumption to slow down. How do we change the symbolic value of those consumables that are ‘inappropriate’, as Burgess et al. call it? Is it possible to change the social value of certain symbols? I suppose it is possible, but it would take quite a lot for the car to lose the symbolic value that it has.

Imagine if the following had no social value at all? What would the world be like if they had negative social value?

Individualization and The Lorax

I was drawn to Maniates’ “Individualization: Plant a Tree, Buy a Bike, Save the World?” on the recommended reading list because it started with a discussion of Dr. Seuss’ The Lorax. I disagree with much of Maniates’ treatment of the book, but I will cover that later. For now, I should say that I do appreciate that Maniates points out that there has been an ‘individualization of responsibility’, to use his phrase. He also points out that this is causing a narrowing of our alternatives, by constraining what we think of as viable alternatives. The idea that if we all plant a tree, we can save the world is one of his examples of this narrowed focus. Can we use this, though, as a stepping stone toward altering behaviour? If we get everyone to plant a tree (actually plant a tree, not pay to have it done) in a location that needs trees, can this be the first step in a lifetime of eco-consciousness that includes better consumption patterns? A question that I have, though, is what to do next? What do we need to do to make sure planting a tree is a first step and not the only step?

Maybe The Lorax is not as “dismal and depressing” (44) as Maniates believes, but is a useful tool to empower the young to re-think the actions of the previous generation, and not make the same mistakes. I feel the young children of today need that message just as much as we need it.

I feel Maniates is coming at the book from the wrong direction – he wants to read it as a book aimed at adults, when it is clearly a book aimed at younger readers. Of course, adults can enjoy it, but we cannot lose sight of the fact that it was written to engage young readers. The ending is full of encouragement for young readers – a kind of encouragement that will hopefully make them excited to take the reins of environmental responsibility and work towards solving problems; encouragement that will help them make the next step, so planting a tree becomes the first step, not the only step.

But then again, maybe I’m sentimental about The Lorax.  

The Well-Being Manifesto and The Happy Planet Index

“Human beings are phenomenally adaptable, and we tend to learn very quickly to view our current position as normal.... We compare ourselves to where we want to be, and to other people. As we achieve our goals, we change whom we compare ourselves to and find a new source of unhappiness! The goalposts are always moving.” (pg.8 in Box 2, The Well-Being Manifesto)

This points to one of the main problems of consumption, that once we start, we continually want more. The above description of consumption reminds me of Relative Deprivation Theory. In a nutshell, it states that people compare themselves to their neighbours, their peers, and others they come in contact with and use them as their marker of success. If they perceive everyone else as doing better than they are, then they feel deprived, however, if they feel that they are doing as well as, or even doing better than everyone else, then they do not feel deprived. As Shah and Marks point out in the above quote, that is exactly what happens when we consume to make ourselves happy. The Happy Planet Index seems to support this theory: “The HPI shows that around the world, high levels of resource consumption do not reliably produce high levels of well-being, and that it is possible to produce high well-being without excessive consumption of the Earth’s resources” (www.happyplanetindex.org). 

As the Well-Being Manifesto points out, we are constantly moving the goalposts – we are always striving for more. Consumption is a short-term solution to the feelings of relative deprivation, but it is a persistent problem, especially in the US. Even though it never fully satisfies us, consuming seems to be the only way Americans can think of to feel better about their situations. I suppose marketing is one of the reasons for this. People are bombarded with the idea that to be happy, they need to buy new products.

As Shah and Marks mention, “Most advertising rests on the pretence that material goods or services will deliver a variety of non-material benefits, and ultimately happiness. This is patently untrue. Advertising raises the standard of what we consider to be normal, inducing unrealistic comparisons.” (pg.17, The Well-Being Manifesto)

My initial reaction to this statement is that material goods can provide confidence, and therefore a level of happiness – but what does that say about my attitude towards shopping? I realize that I have been conditioned to react in such a way through a lifetime of advertising aimed at turning me into a buying, consuming machine. The important question I have to ask myself is: can the same confidence come from other means besides material possessions? The answer is yes, it has to. Otherwise it won't last and anyone who doesn't like your car or the smell of our shampoo or whatever else you buy can take away that confidence, or at least severely damage it. If we rely on objects to make us feel good about ourselves, then we are only concerning ourselves with how others perceive us, not with how we perceive ourselves.

The Happy Planet index is designed to help us realise that we do not need to consume to be happy. As Shah and Marks point out, the only result will be moving the goal posts further away, so we’re left feeling like we have even more consuming to go before we finally make it.

Welcome to my Blog

Hello and welcome to Ryan's Consumables.

This blog, like many of our blogs, is a space for discussion about consumption. Being a student means, in many ways, being a consumer. One of the main things we consume is ideas. I look forward to reading your ideas, your thoughts, and your general musings - I know I will learn a lot.

I hope you enjoy my posts. Feel free to make any comments you'd like. Also, please browse the blog, I'm a proponent of taking short breaks from studying, so Ryan's Consumables includes a few distractions. Hopefully there's something everyone will want to use and maybe even take away.