Who_Are_the_Winners_and_Losers_in_Consumer_Society_

Essay Contemporary UK is what many social scientists call a ‘consumer society’. This is where status is defined by purchases rather than other factors such as jobs or class. However, for most people, the ability to be able to consume effectively involves having a job. So, jobs are important just they generally aren’t considered as important. This essay will outline several subjects to find a winner and loser of the ‘consumer society we live in. The introduction of ‘consumer shopping, consumption and social sciences’ describe an ‘inner city high street’. This street was rundown and not many people used it. When it ‘started to revive in the early 1990’s and early 2000’s, due to new customer outlets’ (Kevin Hetherington, 2009); the street got cleaned up and because it looked nicer more people shopped there. This shows consumption as good because it re-uses old parts of cities that were rundown and forgotten. The street also shows a pattern of how consumption becomes so widespread: first of all there were people who decided to live there, and then some shops were attracted, because of the shops more people were attracted and because there were more people bigger businesses were attracted. These show; consuming can have benefits to rundown streets making the streets the winner in this context. In the late nineteenth century the first department stores opened which were seen as safe places for women. Thorstien Veblen studied the consuming habits of ‘new rich’ who wanted to impress their friends. He found that they often ‘brought things for a particular reason’ (Kevin Hetherington, 2009). To explain his findings he used the concept of ‘conspicuous consumption’. He meant this by people buying luxury items as a statement and visibly marks their status. Recently, Zygmunt Bauman (1988) saw people as winners and losers or the ‘seduced and the repressed’. He believes that ‘a consumer society promises choice and freedom’ (Kevin Hetherington, 2009) and the ‘seduced’ think that’s what they are doing when in fact they choosing what the market has chosen for them. He sees people who don’t have the income or status as the ‘repressed’. This could be a reason as why so many people use store cards so they can look like they fit in and they feel like winners. However, Bauman’s theory is limited this is because he generally assumes people don’t participate in consuming because they can’t afford it rather than choosing not to. These people are called ‘the oppositional’. They generally don’t see themselves as consuming because their produce is local or they grow their own vegetables even though, they are still consuming because they still have to buy food or clothes it doesn’t matter whether they mass produced or not. As mentioned in the previous paragraph when the department stores opened they were safe for women to go alone and not be ‘mistaken for a servant or a prostitute’ (Kevin Hetherington, 2009). This shows women as winners as they didn’t need the dominating males. However, the stores were designed to seduce them into buying more than they needed. Lady Juene (‘the ethnics of shopping’, 1986) said ‘we go to purchase something we want… there so many more things we never thought of… without which our life becomes impossible’. This is still the same now because most people go to buy one thing they need and come out with extra things that weren’t needed. In this respect the department stores are the winners because they realised that tempting people with bargains and sales people spend more than they were meant to. However in the modern day, shopping outlets are more popular than department stores because they are easy to get to in a car and like the department stores were they are also seen as safer. Although if you can’t get there easily then, you are excluded or a loser. Supermarkets have dominated the UK the biggest supermarket chain is Tesco this is shown by figure four. The graph shows that there are only white bits or no super markets in Northern Ireland and Inverness in Scotland and there isn’t much white space. This shows consumers dependence on supermarkets because there is little choice left. Figure five is a table showing the highest and lowest Tesco market share. (Both sources are from the Guardian, 2007) the highest in Perth which has a 60% market share and in a huge Tesco area and the lowest is in Harrogate which only has a 1% market share because, it is in a large Morrison’s area. This shows that supermarkets are national but compete on a regional scale. By ‘buying produces more cheaply’ (John Allen, 2009) supermarkets can sell food cheaply so some people feel ‘the benefits passed on to consumers are enjoyed at the expense of others’ (John Allen, 2009). This is shown in Lina’s story as she is paid less than what the average living expense in Bangladesh is and she can’t support her husband who is sick and can’t work. The ‘anti-supermarket lobby’ see this as a zero sum game. However, supermarkets are there to make a profit and if they paid everyone a fair wage then they would lose the profit or their produces would be too expensive for the general public to buy. The ‘pro supermarket lobby’ insist that even though the supermarkets pay less ‘they are comparably better than other jobs’ (John Allen, 2009) around the Capital of Bangladesh. They also claim that they can ‘materially affect people’s lives in different parts of the world’. People from all over the world can get more produce sold then they would in and around their village making supermarkets a positive sum game. The side of ‘consumer society’ that people don’t like to think about is rubbish. There’s ‘an increased disposability of products, such as disposable nappies and paper products’ (Vivienne Brown, 2009). As these products aren’t biodegradable they have to be put in a landfill site and there is ‘fears the planet may reach an environmental ‘tipping point’ at which its ‘ecosystems may be damaged beyond repair.’ According to the ‘Global Footprint Network’ in 2008 the ‘ecological debt day was estimated to be 23rd September the earliest date ever’ (nef, 2008; Global Footprint Network, 2008a). This is seen as unsustainable because it’s hard to pay the environment back. DR Phil Von Hurst says ‘the polluter is always us because we are the end consumer’ (rubbish society, 2009, no.1). I think this means that because we buy the things made from factories and end up throwing them out we are polluting the environment. However, I think it’s wrong to assume that the consumer as the last person to touch the product is the ‘polluter’ because there are better ways to make the products. From this the environment looks like a loser but with recycling and replanting trees and biodegradable products it is slowly becoming a winner. Also, rubbish can become useful such as, ‘drinking cups turned into office equipment’ (DR Ross Taylor, rubbish society, 2009, no.1). In conclusion, there are many factors involving the ‘consumer society’ that we live in that it’s hard to find a winner and a loser. Although, I think that shops are the winners because they are the ones that make a profit out of it. I also believe that rubbish is a ‘loser’ because it isn’t wanted. I also think that society is always changing so while this one seems unsustainable the next one might not be. However, it will have winners and losers because, no society has been equal.