Consumer_Society

An consumer society is a society in which people are encouraged to buy new good,  some of which they do not need and where ownership of these goods are considered  to be an important part of their lives. It isn’t easy to try and put a value on  rubbish. It depends on its desirability and whether it is of any use to us; “one  man’s trash is another man’s treasure”.  We are becoming more aware of how our wastefulness especially in more affluent  countries is having an impact on our planet and its ecosystem. The GFN (Global  Footprint Network 2008a; nef, 2008) estimates in 2008 humankind was using up the  biological capacity of 1.4 planet Earths – 40% greater than the annual resources  of Earth.  In 2005 it was 30%. A report The Food We Waste (WRAP, 2008a, 2008b)  states that at least a third of food bought in the UK every year is thrown away,  approx 6.7 million tonnes of food. Sixty one per cent of the food thrown away  could be avoided with better food management i.e. not cooking more than is going  to be eaten. This costs the average household £420 per annum. In recent years  household waste in the UK has increased. In 2006/07 rubbish for each UK resident  was 508kg compared to 397kg 1983/84 (Defra, 2007). An article by Richard Alleyne  (Telegraph October 2007) claims that cooking with leftovers is one of the  earliest arts of recycling and needs to be rediscovered to help save the  environment. WRAP is quoted as saying that discarded food is a bigger problem  than packaging as the food supply chain accounts for a fifth of the UK carbon  emissions and decomposing food releases methane the most potent form of  greenhouse gases. In similar ways unwanted clothes and unwanted furniture have  now started to be recycled on websites like EBay where people sell on their  unwanted things or Freecycle site which enables people to advertise the items  which are free to whoever wants them. Junk Art is another way of using rubbish,  turning it into something of beauty. Tracey Emin My Bed (1988) took an unmade  bed and arranged empty bottles and rubbish from an untidy bedroom, a photograph  of it was on the Saatchi Gallery website.  Consumption is now a dominant force in shaping all our identities.  Its not  just about our basic needs, it has become a form of socialisation and  self-expression. What we buy and how we use these things give us a sense of  belonging and provides an indicator of who we are (Making Social Lives, 2009,  p20).  Consumerism is meant to offer people a choice and the promise of freedom, but  not everyone is able to take part. A social scientist Zigmunt Bauman (1988)  claims society is divided into two categories of consumers, the “seduced and the  repressed” (Making Social Lives 2009, p25). The seduced consumer has a positive  identity; they conform to the ideals of this group as they have the financial  means in which to partake fully in the consumer society. The seduced are  generally in full time employment which gives them the means to purchase the  goods necessary for social inclusion. Mobile phones, personal transport and  internet access are important for social inclusion. A common belief is that the  more we have raises our status in society, it gives us a sense of belonging and  increases our self-worth. In Bauman’s terms the seduced are received well in  society as they are seen by others to have the ability to consume more  effectively. Bauman also believes that there is a portion of society that is excluded from  this consumer society whom he refers to as the repressed (Making Social Lives,  2009, p28). This group includes low income families, the unemployed, people with  ill health, and the disabled and sometimes ethnic minorities. He claims that  their lack of income or lack of ability to participate excludes them from  society. Although a young adult with a similar low income could find it easier  to take part in consumer activities than an older person due to their lack of  financial responsibilities such as mortgages, utility and food bills or having  children.  Their ability to buy the latest fashion or technology and their  understanding of the latest consumer lingo makes them more acceptable to their  peers and society. Michael Thompson writes in his book Rubbish Theory: The Creation and Destruction  of Value (1979) how some things fall into and out of the rubbish category. In  his argument he puts rubbish into three categories - Objects that are transient  – their value decreases in time once used, such as mobile phones, cars and  clothes. Objects that are rubbish and has almost no value, such as broken or out  of date mobile phones.  Durable items whose value increases over time, such as  fine jewellery and art. Thompson argues that some items fit into both transient and durable categories  and claim they have to go through the rubbish category to happen wherein it  becomes valueless and over time its price rises and is revalued as trends  dictate what is deemed of worth or worthless. Thompson uses an example of Stevengraphs made by a silk weaver from Coventry,  Thomas Stevens (1822-88). He made silk pictures of historical figures, events,  celebrities and royal weddings to put on souvenirs such as calendars, bookmarks  giving him a profitable business. In 1860 the free trade Cobden Treaty, bought  competition from overseas for Stevens and his silk ribbons became unpopular.  From data published in 1971 (Godden 1971) Thompson recognised a pattern of how  the Stevengraphs value fluctuated from the beginning of production in the late  19th century to the early 1970’s (an example he used was that of Dick Turpin’s  ride to New York 1739). Its value was a shilling in 1879 but by the middle of  the 20th century, interest and value in this piece diminished. By the 1960/70s  interest rose as it fell into the collectable category of “Victorian Kitsch” it  sold for large amounts of money. Although Thompson’s evidence does not give a clear picture of what happens to  all types of rubbish, it shows us that certain types cannot be defined in one  category because they are always changing value depending on economic and  consumer needs, habits and trends. He reasons that if one individual sees an  item not as rubbish but as a durable and that his example is followed by another  and another and so on, until everyone is agreed that the item is durable. The  fact that individuals are continually making bizarre and eccentric evaluations,  the great majority do not even trigger a off a second evaluation. So, out of  this vast range of possible transformations a tiny fraction actually gain  acceptance (Thompson 1979, p26-7). Using the Stevengraphs as an example when prices had fallen Thompson claims  these were “ideal collecting conditions” (1979, p29 quoting Goddard 1971, p27).  He goes on to say that during this time due to large supply and lack of demand  collectors could buy them at very low prices. This was based on economic  language and not sociology; it was more about how the collectors were behaving.  Between 1967-69 their prices increased and auctioned at a well known fine arts  auctioneers. As interest increased new collectors began to show an interest in  them. By this time production had stopped so the amount available did not  increase until private collectors decided to sell. This created a market price  which was relative to the supply and demand of Stevengraphs.  I believe that rubbish can have a value in a consumer society, but only when it  is something that we either want or need. Both Bauman and Thompson make valid  points. I agree that our financial situation can dictate how we participate in  consumer society and peer pressure amongst the younger generation to have the  latest technology or fashion is very high. The same can be said for the older  generation, we all, to some degree want to “keep up with the Jones’s”. I agree  with Thompson, items change value depending on the latest trends. Items can also  change value categories if production has stopped or the creator has died, it is  supply and demand