Tma02_Explore_the_Claim_That_a_Consumer_Society_Is_Always_a_‘Throw-Away’_Society.

TMA 02 Explore the claim that a consumer society is always a ‘throw-away’ society. There are several aspects that must be addressed when considering whether a ‘consumer society’ is always a ‘throw-away society’. This essay, will first attempt to define what constitutes a ‘consumer society’. Secondly, it will consider the rising level of affluence and links to increasing mass consumption. It will then look at the environmental consequences of waste disposal. Lastly, it will look at the changing attitudes towards waste and the alternatives to land fill disposal available to those who consume. In the past the UK was often referred to as an ‘industrial society’, where the position of the individual within society was primarily defined within by their profession. Wealthy professionals such as doctors or lawyers would have been able to indulge in the use of luxury items whereas low-paid factory-workers, for example, would have been unable to consume non-essential goods and services. This has changed however; contemporary UK society is now often referred to as a ‘consumer society’, where occupation is no longer the focus for individuals to define their social status. In its place, a person’s lifestyle is now more significant in forming their social identity. Consumption within a consumer society is much less about necessity but primarily about choice (Hinchliffe et al, p26-27 2009). There are several reasons given for this increasing consumption, Zygmunt Bauman explains this as desire for social inclusion. Bauman (year') argues that in a consumer society individuals can be represented by two groups, the ‘seduced’ and the ‘repressed’. The ‘seduced’ are those who, due to their own social and financial positions are able to make use of the goods and services available as a way of social inclusion (Bauman cited in Hetherington, 2009). The ‘seduced’ may often consume to make a positive statement; for example, by purchasing a car from a particular manufacturer to demonstrate their status within society. This manner of consuming is referred to by Thorstein Veblen as ‘conspicuous consumption’ (Veblen cited in Hetherington, 2009). Conversely ‘the repressed’ are those who not able to consume effectively. Hetherington gives an example of an increasing shift towards consumer services being supplied through the internet; he argues that people who do not have access to computers could find themselves socially excluded from certain activities (p27-28, 2009). This demonstrates that, as in previous societies, a consumer society produces social divisions. It also reveals the importance of consumption to the creation and maintenance of a desired status within society. However, this change in society would not have been possible without economic change for example through a rising level of affluence. Good point. Evidence from the ONS shows that between 1971 and 2006 disposable income within a household increased approximately 150 percent (cited in Brown p111 2009). Brown suggests that this increase has allowed individuals to spend more money on non-essential items and this has led to an improved standard of living. Subsequently, the rising level of affluence has been a key factor in increasing consumption. Although Brown states that it if difficult to give an exact measure of the level of affluence in the UK because of changes in social attitudes to what is considered ‘necessity’ and ‘luxury’, evidence can be seen through observation (author, year p108, 2009). For example, as gender equality has improved there has been a move in the household towards more ‘labour-saving’ activities and appliances in areas that were previously considered ‘women’s work’. This shift has resulted in increased consumption of household goods and appliances (Brown p112, 2009). Furthermore Brown submits that the increased cost of labour means the price of repairing items can now be greater than the cost of replacing them and that consequential there is greater need to dispose of items (Brown p113, 2009). John Allen (year')considers the rise of the supermarkets and how their influence has changed the way in which people now consume. He claims that supermarkets are now able to ‘seduce’ the consumer by offering a greater variety of goods and services than ever before and points to evidence that suggests almost three quarters of all money spent on food and groceries in the UK are given to one of the four big supermarket brands (author, year, page number)p57, 2009). Whilst these changes could be seen as positive, there are consequences to such mass consumption. According to Defra household rubbish per person in England increased by 28 per cent between 1983/84 and 2006/07 (Defra, 2007 cited in Brown p107, 2009). This has had a considerable impact on the environment and as recent as 1983/84 the amount of household rubbish that was being recycled in England amounted to just 1 per cent of the total rubbish produced (Defra, 2007 cited in Brown p117, 2009). It suggests much of it would be disposed of through incineration or at land fill sites. Organisations such as The Global Footprint Network monitor the environmental impact of consumption, including waste, on the ecological resources of Earth. The term ‘humanity’s global footprint’ is used to quantify human consumption against the planet’s ability to replenish its natural resources and according to GFN in 2008 it was 40 per cent greater than what the planet is able to replenish annually. The GFN has stated this level of consumption is environmental unsustainable (Brown p115, 2009). There have, however, been some changes in attitudes towards rubbish and the implications of wastefulness. Since 1983/84 the level of household rubbish recycling has risen considerably, in 2006/07 it stood at 31 per cent of total rubbish. In addition to this since 2002/03 to 2006/07 the waste produced per capita has also begun to fall (Defra 2007, cited Brown p117 2009). One explanation of this increase is the growth of the recycling industries. Brown offers an example of a container ship from China that delivered commodities to the UK, returning full with rubbish for recycling; this demonstrates both mass consumption and considerable levels of disposal and recycling. There are other examples of individuals recycling such as the use of internet auction sites or the donation of goods to charity stores to be resold (Brown p119-120, 2009). These examples illustrate that whilst some items can be considered worthless to an individual they could have value to another and this value can even change over time. According to Michael Thompson’s ‘theory of rubbish’ (year') items for use in everyday life are classed as ‘transient’, as their value depreciates over time, for example the quick devaluation of older mobile phones. Items such as quality jewellery and works of art, however, are classed as ‘durable’ as they are likely to hold or even increase in value. Thompson’s ‘rubbish theory’ suggests however that those items are able to pass from ‘transient’ becoming ‘rubbish’ before entering the ‘durable’ category. It proposes that the value of an item may fall from its original price to a notional ‘zero value’ before rising once again as a ‘durable’ item (Thompson cited in Brown p122-123, 2009). Thompson offers an example of this process with Victorian silk-woven pictures known as Stevengraphs. When they were first produced they were sold for the equivalent of 5 pence however by the late nineteenth century had become almost worthless. Yet by the 1960s and 70s they had become ‘valuable’ collector’s items and were selling for substantial amounts of money (Brown p124, 2009). In conclusion, just as in all societies, a ‘consumer society’ creates both winners and losers. It is evident that there is a relationship between rising affluence, changes in social and economic attitudes and a rise in consumption. Significantly, the evidence submitted by GFN suggests current levels of consumption are environmentally unsustainable. However, it is apparent that a ‘consumer society’ is not always a ‘throw-away’ society. The development of recycling industries is serving to reduce the amount of rubbish that is disposed of in land fill. Thompson’s ‘rubbish theory’ suggests that rubbish can change in value and can even become ‘valuable’ in the eyes of a collector. References Hinchliffe, S., (2009) ‘Introduction: Material Lives’ in Taylor, S., Hinchliffe, S., Clarke, J. and Bromley, S. (eds) Making Social Lives, Milton Keynes, The Open University. Hetherington, (2009) ‘Consumer society' Shopping, consumption and social science’ in Taylor, S., Hinchliffe, S., Clarke, J. and Bromley, S. (eds) Making Social Lives, Milton Keynes, The Open University. Allen J, (2009) ‘One-stop shopping: the power of supermarkets’ in in Taylor, S., Hinchliffe, S., Clarke, J. and Bromley, S. (eds) Making Social Lives, Milton Keynes, The Open University. Brown, V. (2009) ‘Rubbish society: affluence, waste and values’,in Taylor, S., Hinchliffe, S., Clarke, J. and Bromley, S. (eds) Making Social Lives, Milton Keynes, The Open University. Word Count: 1300