Reading_Report_on_Consumption

Reading Report on Christopher Lasch „The Culture of Consumption“ and Michael Schudson „Delectable Materialism: Second Thoughts on Consumer Culture“ Which are, according to Lasch, the indicators pointing to the emergence of a consumer society' In which decade(s) does he locate that emergence' In the late 19th century the industry in the United States restricted its production to goods that were necessary for construction across the country. Then, by the middle of the 20th century “the shift from heavy industry to consumer goods […] was unmistakable” (Lasch, p. 1381). The “consumer debt […] increased”, “half of the families in the middle income range carried installment payments”, “the morality of thrift” lost its value (Lasch, p. 1381). When the motto “Buy now, pay later” turned up, it was no longer necessary to be modest. The longing for comfort is only human and now even the lower income class was permitted to accumulating earthly goods. Now one had to fear to be judged by his peers for his indebtedness, since it became a common practice. Buying things didn't demand the need, but the craving for comfort and the “appetite for better things, once these things were placed within the reach of the common people” (Lasch, 1382). An effect of theses new dimensions of buying showed in the improvement of social life: People owning goods feel superior and more valued. So dealing with life, work and family wasn't as hard anymore, especially for the working class (q.v. Lasch, p. 1382). At the same time the morality of hard work lost importance. Already in the early 20's, consumer goods were produced in great runs and sold very well up to the point when the Great Depression started demanding it's first sacrifices (q.v. Lasch, p 1381). In the 40's and 50's economy started prospering again. A culture of consumption was born. Advertisement gained influence on peoples buying behavior and the producers of costumer goods even went so far to encourage buying by “continual redesign[ing] of products […] apart from any mechanical improvement” (Lasch, p. 1384). Buyers lost track on what they really wanted and instead they went for what advertisement suggested they needed. {text:soft-page-break} In his subchapter on “The Revisionist Defense of Scholarship” Lasch points to certain critiques and defenses of consumption. How do these view the role of the consumer' The writings of Stuart Ewen, a historian on consumer culture, claim that “consumption is part of a […] system of control” that leaves the “consumer incapable of independent judgment” (Lasch, p. 1388). “The new way of thinking” (Lasch, p. 1388), on the other hand, enables consumers to decide, what they want – without any external interference. They give their acquisition as much meaning as they think it deserves, and therewith the industry can make as much suggestions and promises as it wants to – it doesn't work on the costumers. Therewith the “costumers should be understood as active participants in the culture of consumption” (Lasch, p. 1388). Then again some revisionists negate that ”consumption [actually] is exploitive or oppressive” - they say, that it rather frees the people – they feel a lot better about themselves when they can afford the indulgence life has to offer (Lasch, p. 1388). Some revisionist dug deep in history and found out that consumerism had a place in society for a long, long time... it's not just a new tendency that arose from industrialization, but something that comes with human demands. How does Michael Schudson characterize American journalists'/intellectuals' attitudes toward consumerism' What is the central question at the basis of his article' American journalists can not “consider consumerism in the United States without depreciating it” (Schudson, p. 341). They do not stick by their wealth, their wide range of goods that were to acquire in their supermarkets and one of their cultures main feature. “They view American materialism skeptically and critically” (Schudson, p. 342). “They trade on a distaste for consumerism” (Schudson, p. 342), even though it is part of their own culture. Schudson criticizes the critics that tend to be extreme in their refusal of consumption, because actually a “way for a more balanced assessment of consumerism” has to be found. As the United States are hosting the consumption, they hold the dream of many in the rest of the world. {text:soft-page-break} Which basic assumptions does most criticism of the consumer culture share' What is, according to Schudson, problematic about these assumptions' The criticism of consumer culture is based on the depreciation “of advertising and costumer culture […], middle - class society and capitalism in general” (Schudson, p. 342). They “object […] that things are in the saddle to ride us” (Schudson, p. 342) - so to speak: we depend on what we have got. They claim that “if we could live the simple live”(Schudson, p. 342), we could be satisfied by what nature has to offer. Therefore we have to “neatly separate necessary from artificial needs and wants” (Schudson, p. 343) and then just stick to what is necessary. Schudson now wonders, in how far it is possible to draw a line between the needs and the wants, because nature no longer can give us, what the social fabric made essential for our well-being. The natural needs are fulfilled not only by natural goods (like eating), but also by social features in addition- the one's that make us differ from the animals. Schudson claims, that the real needs are not only natural anymore, but made by society: “Human biological functions […] are culturally coded and socially organized” (Schudson, p. 343). Furthermore human needs are relative (q.v. Schudson, p. 344)– from society to society, so to say. And it is society that defines the degree of satisfaction. A little paradox seems the fact, that the capitalist, strongly being objected by the critics of consumption, was the one to define the minimum of human needs (q. v. Schudson, p. 344)- basically the mere ones that the same critics want us to satisfy without demanding more than is naturally given. The final conclusion is, that the basic needs can't be defined without considering what society claims to be necessary, nor regardless a certain degree of relativism. What are the basic assumptions of the "Puritan Critique" and what is, according to Schudson, problematic about them' “The Puritan critique worries about whether people invest an appropriate amount of meaning in goods.” (Schudson, p. 345). Worldly possessions are claimed to be inferior to spiritual pursuits (q. v. Schudson, p. 345). The question is what makes things valuable to us. Do we value things for the simple service they do, or for what we think they make of us' The Puritan critique states that we need to value the goods that “serve practical human needs” (Schudson, p. 346) just for their {text:soft-page-break} services. But Schudson doubts the adequacy of that assumption. If we are passionate about a certain item, because it holds a meaning to us that is not just due to that it serves us to fulfill our needs- do we undervalue that item itself and overspriritualize the meaning of it' Or the other way around, if we value something just because it does its job- and if we didn't have any trouble to exchange it anytime, even though it might be connected to a beautiful episode in our past which we are ought to remember... do we underspritualize that item, and overvalue its services' Schudson wonders: “[...]what is the appropriate standard'”. What is the basic argument of the "Quaker Critique"' What is, according to Schudson, problematic about it' The Quaker critique puts its stress on the “wastefulness or extravagance” (Schudson, p. 347) of consumption. People tend to be suggestible – and if an item that does its job can be replaced by a prettier one, people will need it. That's a wasteful consuming. But if an item “more practical, less ostentatious, and less wasteful” (Schudson, p. 347) hits the marked, people might want it, too. And then they also buy a clear conscience towards the environment, for example. Wastefulness is relative, too. Always compared to the better and the worse (q. v. Schudson, p. 348). “The Quaker critique tends to suggest, that consumption that is more practical, less ostentatious, and less wasteful is better.” (Schudson, p. 348). But Schudson disproves that suggestion, since in some cases less practical and more ostentatious actually can be less wasteful (q. v. Schudson, p. 348). And he know asks, what the “standard of appropriate convenience” (Schudson, p. 348) was. Because again these are values set by the society we live in, and we can't help but adapt our needs to these standards. Progress sometimes also tends to wastefulness, to lead to an improvement in practical application – so another effort can be reduced. And it's our responsibility to find the balance between needs nd comfort. {text:soft-page-break} What are the basic assumptions of the "Republican Critique" and what is, according to Schudson, problematic about them' The Republican rejection of consumption results from “the corrupting influence on public life of a goods orientation in private life” (Schudson, p. 349). People tend to care less for politics when they are satisfied with what they have got. All they want, is to get prefabricated alternatives to choose between, otherwise they stay passive. Furthermore it's not significant anymore, what you do for living, but what you have got in live. That also has an negative impact on politics, since our working life certainly depends on it- but as long as our profession is meaningless to society, politics loose influence (q. v. Schudson, p. 349). Finally “a goods orientation is privatizing” (Schudson, p. 349): nobody sees a need in socializing anymore when he can be satisfied with his possessions, that he hoards at home. Schudson feels, that in all occasions the contrary might be the case: “People [are] actively engaged with the things they consume” (Schudson, p. 350). They keep concerning themselves with the goods they've got, and take it even further by making a profession out of their concerns. So Schudson claims, in most cases consumption is not passive. Work can satisfy us as much as our possessions – that's what the Republic view sticks to. But work without consumption can't be all that fulfilling. Schudson claims: “[...] it is some kind of metaphysics that makes labor the defining feature in human life”. (Schudson, p. 350) Also the “privatizing character of consumerism” (Schudson, p. 350) is to be contested by Schudson. People still do socialize – they meet friends, go to work and take care of their family. There are really few people, yet, that are locked up in their houses, being happy with what they've got inside. “Political activism in the years leading up to the American Revolution was organized around consumer identity[...]” (Schudson, p. 350), and people gathered to protest against the import of British products, because they held up their own production and backed their country. And also for many other occasions people came together and showed political engagement, when it was to convince the politicians to change a state of affairs for their own good. Therewith Schudson contradicts to this argument as well: “[...] consumer culture has provided the avenue and the engine for entrance into public life” (Schudson, p. 351). {text:soft-page-break} Which are the arguments made by the proponents of "Antibourgeois Critiques"' What is problematic about them' The Antibourgeois objection denunciates the exploitation of the working class. “Consumer society is to distract the minds and bodies of workers [...]” (Schudson, p. 351). It tries to distract the hard working people from their miserable working standards. The critics suppose that consumption prevents protests within the working class, since they don't see, why they should complain, when they have their goods for compensation. Again, Schudson rejects these sources of criticism. He claims, that the workers goods “can also be seen as authentic sources of both utility and meaning” (Schudson, p. 352). Also, he argues that the aristocratic objection results from a sense for aesthetic. Because the goods that the less privileged are able to acquire are products of mass production- thus they are “ugly” (q.v. Schudson, p. 352). They are cheap and the workers are grateful for them- because they make life more convenient to them. But the wealthy dislikes the products that are neither beautiful, nor rare nor of high quality. “The problem is one of standards and relativism.” (Schudson, p. 352). Does Schudson suggest an alternative to these traditions of critique' Schudson merely explains that “people should live by some set of moral rules for consumption”. But still he doesn't have an answer to the main question: Up to which degree consumption can be justified and in how far do we consume with responsibility' So there is no perfect alternative to the former critics and it is up to the readers what to do with all the criticism he has put through with all the critics he has mentioned.