Category: Consumerism

Negative Consequences Of Fashion Consumerism On Environment

Many people in the U.S. have gotten used to our consumerist society and endlessly partake in it. We can declare to being constantly bombarded by visual stimuli, bear witness to the long lines for limited-edition collaborations between brands, splurging on clothes in-stores or online, and of course, seeing the crowds of people in stores during Black Friday trying to land a “good deal”. As much as consumerism has helped the economy, it has also had its negative consequences which have become more prominent due to the increasing awareness of the overwhelming amount of consumer debt and of environmental issues.

First, we have to address the definition of consumerism. So what is consumerism? In today’s world, it has been widely accepted as the social and economic force for the demand for mass-produced goods. However, there are many more definitions and explanations of the concept of consumerism. Peter Stearns, a professor from George Mason University, explained it as “a society in which many people formulate their goals in life partly through acquiring goods that they clearly do not need for subsistence or for traditional display” (Beyond Consumerism: New Historical Perspectives on Consumption). So, its definition can be expanded from a social and economic force to a popular and widespread mentality and behavior shared amongst most Americans. It is this mentality and behavior that many think about when they hear the word consumerism. Such has shaped the American consumerist culture.

This consumerist mentality and behavior began to really take shape going into the 1920s and World War I. The line between items of necessities and those of luxury and leisure began to become increasingly blurred from then on. Products invented during the “roaring 20’s” included things such as the washing machine, iron, radio, the refrigerator, and the most defining of the era, the automobile which was Ford’s Model T. Many people saw these newly invented goods as necessities but the average American, at the time, could not yet afford them. Therefore, Ford made the automobile more available to everyone through consumer credit in which Americans would pay for products through installments, dividing the total cost into smaller payments and paying them over a span of time. These “installment payments [were introduced and] pioneered by Singer Sewing Machines” (Consumerism). Through the availability of consumer credit, many were filled with the instant gratification of purchasing a product even though the product had not actually been paid for with cash. In 1920, there were 8 million of the Model T produced and in the homes of Americans. Only 10 years later, there were 28 million in total. Nowadays, we can still pay through installments along with credit cards.

As aforementioned, consumer credit began to be available to the common person in the 1920s through installment payments. Credit cards were only “issued by specific merchants or groups of merchants. In 1958 the general-purpose credit card was born when Bank of America created a bankcard that eventually became the Visa card. In 1966 a group of banks joined together to create what became Mastercard” (Consumerism, Erik Wright, and Joel Rogers). As a result of the use of credit cards, consumerism started to exponentially increase. Nowadays, applying for a credit card requires steady employment and minimal effort. Credit cards are given to whoever has good employment regardless if the person is new to credit, educated about credit, or responsible. Consumption skyrocketed even though people knew that their purchases did not fit well within their budget. This is where the ugly side of credit in consumerism comes into play.

Although we can use credit to get something we want immediately, many do not use and manage their credit cards wisely. We are encouraged to use our earnings for necessities such as food, water, shelter, insurance bills, and the occasional hospital bills. Then, out of our earnings, we are encouraged to save a certain portion over time to be able to buy goods we want. Yet, in our hyper-consumerist culture, we want things now instead of later. People purchase goods sometimes not knowing if they will have enough money in their paycheck to pay off their credit card bill or they don’t take into consideration the number of bills they are paying with that credit card and eventually the total accumulates and becomes too much to be able to pay it off completely. In the process, hurting the finances of that person and their credit score. This leads into credit card debt. The numbers are appalling. According to Erik Wright, an American sociologist, and Joel Rogers, an academic, stated that “ in 1968, consumers’ total credit card debt was $8.8 billion (averaged over the year, in 2008 dollars). By 2008 the total averaged over $942 billion” (Consumerism). Such statistics illustrate how alarming credit card debt is. Yet, the numbers for consumer debt in general are more disheartening. Wright and Rogers further provide us with considerable larger numbers with “[t]he size of the total consumer debt [growing] (in constant dollars) nearly 3 times in size from $898 billion in 1980 to $2.6 trillion in 2008” (Consumerism). One of the solutions to this growing debt is to utilize credit in the correct and responsible manner. If we don’t change our behaviors, and how we think about credit cards, we can find ourselves in even worse waters.

Since the day we become aware of our surroundings, we constantly see ads online or off. Whether we want to or not. Promising us that if we purchase a certain product, it will change our lives in some dramatic way, shape, or form. A study was conducted and “found that by age 16 the typical American will have seen almost six million ads. This translates into more than one ad per waking minute” (So, What’s Wrong with Consumerism?). Since a young age, the practice of consumption is laid upon us. We see billboards, TV commercials, and strategically placed ads in media we use daily. They influence American culture. They urge us to buy the latest phone, the latest fashion pieces, or buy fast food. We become really knowledgeable about slogans brands use and become brand logo savvy to the point where mobile games are being based off of such knowledge. Americans are all too familiar with Nike’s “Just do it” and its iconic swish to McDonald’s “I’m Lovin’ It” and its famous golden double arcs. The problem, however, does not arise from our knowledge of brand symbols/slogans and what they represent. The issue truly begins to take shape when advertising convinces us that consumption is the answer to life’s challenges. As if buying temporary and materialistic things, we definitely do not need, will magically relieve us of all the problems we face in life. Nonetheless, many of us fall into that rabbit hole and do not learn from our fall. We sometimes get caught up in a loop and do not learn from our meaningless purchases. Instead, we consume repeatedly, each time coming up with an excuse for why the previous buy failed to improve our lives in a meaningful and dramatic way and why we need to buy even more. This introduces the problem of impulse and online shopping.

Online shopping has become more widespread and prominent due to the convenience of the internet, debit/credit cards and our brain’s response to it. With the convenience of online shopping, we now don’t have to take time to drive to the nearest shopping mall/center, wait in queues to check out and drive back home. Now, we can avoid that and shop from the comfort of our homes at any time we want. Thanks to warehouses such as Amazon, we can get things cheaper even though they come from a different city, state or even a different country. Many proclaim their love for online shopping since “consumers have a better experience online than in the store…and there is a broader selection online and deeper inventory” (Online Shopping). We can see how much more, people prefer online shopping through the recent development of Cyber Monday. We were used to the idea of physically going out to hunt for the best deals but “[o]nline retail shopping in the United States — excluding travel and autos — has grown fourfold since 2002 and surged 15 percent… reach[ed] $186 billion in sales, while growth in overall retail sales… was in the low single digits” (Internet Shopping). Whenever we buy anything online, we are hit with that instant gratification when we click “place order.” In brain chemistry, we get a dopamine hit, the happy hormone, when we buy something. With online shopping, we get an additional dopamine hit when it arrives and another when we open up the package. Apart from the convenience, minimal effort, and inexpensiveness of online products, this is another reason for the increasing popularity of online shopping. However, this growing demand for cheap products can be detrimental to the workers that are employed in such warehouses.

The convenience of online shopping, especially on Amazon, are made possible through the hard work of laborers. Earlier this year, Amazon came under fire for the treatment of its workers and the long hours they have to put in. A worker stated “They overwork you and you’re like a number to them. During peak season and Prime season, they give you 60 hours a week. In July, I had Prime week and worked 60 hours. The same day I worked overtime, I got into a bad car accident because I was falling asleep behind the wheel” (We are not robots’: Amazon warehouse employees push to unionize). The increase of consumerism and online shopping for cheap products proves to be detrimental to the health of workers that have to endure long hours without breaks. The same thing applies to fashion.

In the U.S., there is a big influence by big brand names and celebrities. When collaborations drop, they are usually only limited to increase the demand for it. Names such as Supreme, Bape, and Off-White are the latest in streetwear. People line up outside their stores when a new article of clothing drops and are limited to just buying one item. People that are well off can afford to do this. However, many try to keep up with trends while only spending what they can afford. This is where fast fashion comes in. Fast fashion has become increasingly talked-about and perceived negatively… and rightfully so. Company’s try to sell what is in trend at the moment to increase their profits. In order to do that they mass produce cheap products through cheap labor. Many of these “cheap” labor workers work extremely long hours without much rest time in between all while earning little. Fast fashion brands try to increase their profit margins by moving “production to supplier firms in developing countries…these… companies then subcontract production to manufacturing companies…that are not officially authorized by or affiliated with the fast fashion brands that carried out the initial outsourcing. Without authorization or affiliation, fast fashion brands carry no legal obligation to ensure decent working conditions…And because unauthorized subcontractors are unregistered, they operate without government regulation and oversight, resulting in deteriorating work facilities where worker abuse runs rampant” (Factory Exploitation and the Fast Fashion Machine). Not only does fast fashion increase cheap labor and the exploitation of workers, but it also harms the environment. Fast fashion items can be seen as “disposable” since fashion is always changing however, when people dispose of these items in increases the amount of trash in landfills. If we are keeping track of what is happening to our environment we know that we’re running out of places to put all of our trash. We fill up landfills, pollute our oceans and export our trash to developing countries. Recently China and Indonesia have stated that they are not taking our waste anymore. There are other alternatives to fast fashion and cheap consumer goods.

Recently, fast fashion and cheap consumer goods have come under fire. Some consumers are trying to reverse this trend taking part in growing movements like zero-waste households, capsule wardrobes, upcycling clothes, doing a year of no shopping, or even minimalism. Some consumers are using their buying power to encourage companies to create more sustainable products and in turn give a fair wage to workers. Beyond individual choices we can look for a more encompassing solution. Right now we make use and then trash all of our materials which can take a thousand years to biodegrade. Companies could design all of our goods for reuse and to have multiple life cycles before finally composting back into the Earth. we could start with clothing. nearly 100% of our fabrics could be recycled into pulp and turned into new textiles

Other environmental issues have developed over time because of excess consumerism. Globalization, when industries/companies develop international impact or influence and become integrated with each other on a global scale, has become a key factor in making products and services that were once out of reach of other numerous countries increasingly accessible. Items that at one point in time were considered luxuries, such as televisions, cell phones, computers, and air conditioning units, are now viewed as needs. China is a clear example. China’s “major cities were characterized by a virtual sea of people on bicycles, and 25 years ago there were barely any private cars in China. By 2000, 5 million cars moved people and goods; the number is expected to reach 24 million by the end of next year” (So, What’s Wrong with Consumerism?). Increased dependence and demand for gas-powered vehicles increase the emission of greenhouse gases/pollution, increases traffic, and therefore increase the demand and use of more non-renewable fossil fuels. Automobiles and other forms of transportation account “for nearly 30 percent of world energy use and 95 percent of global oil consumption”(So, What’s Wrong with Consumerism?). The environmental consequences of consumerism are not just limited to automobiles and the burning of fossil fuels. America’s diet, with a high demand for meat, takes a toll on the environment as well.

Environmental impact isn’t only limited to technology. It also includes the way we produce and raise our food. To provide enough beef, chicken, and pork to fulfill the increasing demand for protein, the industry has had to move to factory farming. This change in raising livestock has its negative sides. Many of our available water (and other resources) goes to agricultural reasons and into raising such livestock. In order to produce “eight ounces of beef [it] requires 6,600 gallons of water” (The Rise of American Consumerism). In addition “ 95% of world soybean crops are consumed by farm animals and 16% of the world’s methane, a destructive greenhouse gas, is produced by belching, flatulent livestock” (PBS). The enormous quantities of manure produced at factory farms becomes toxic waste rather than a fertilizer, and runoff threatens nearby bodies of water. So even if we claim to have an abundance of food, the process of growing and raising it is compromising the health of the environment.

There, of course, have been things such as veganism and more sustainable farming to face these issues. Many people have become very aware that livestock such as chicken, turkeys, pigs, and cows are “collectively the largest producers of methane in the U.S.”(Veganism and The Environment: by the Numbers.) Veganism does not only apply to the beliefs of animal rights of people involved, but also applies to the improvement of the environment.

Of course, consumerism is an important part of our economy. However, the extent of such a culture and how these goods are made are the real culprits of harming us and the planet. We need to speak out about the negatives of consumerist culture and explore/ encourage ways to make food and things such as clothes and technology in a more sustainable way.

The Globalization of Cultural Identity

Introduction

This paper aims to survey the recent research on globalization and growth, with an emphasis on research of how cultural globalization occurring around us. To understand cultural globalization, we should first understand what the term actually globalization means. Globalization is the process in which people, ideas and goods spread throughout the world, prodding more interaction and integration between the world’s societies, governments and economies.

The term is most much of the time utilized in reference to making a coordinated worldwide economy set apart by organized commerce, the free progression of capital and corporate utilization of outside work markets to expand returns. However, some use the term globalization more broadly, applying it to the movement of people, information and technology across international borders; some also apply it to the free flow of cultural, environmental and political issues.

History of globalization

“Globalization as a term came to prominence in the 1980s. Although many consider this process a relatively new phenomenon, globalization has been going on for centuries. The Roman Empire, for example, spread its economic and governing systems through significant portions of the ancient world for centuries. Similarly, the trade routes of the Silk Road carried merchants, goods and travellers from China through Central Asia and the Middle East to Europe and represented another wave of globalization. “

European countries had critical ventures overseas in the decades before the World War I, provoking a few financial experts to mark the pre-war period as a previous brilliant time of globalization.” “Globalization has ebbed and flowed throughout history, with periods of expansion, as well as retrenchment. The 21st century has witnessed both. Global stock markets plummeted after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States, but rebounded in subsequent years.

Generally, however, the early 21st century has seen a sensational increment in the pace of worldwide combination, driven basically by fast advances in innovation and broadcast communications. In general, money, technology and materials flow more swiftly across national boundaries today than they ever have in the past. The progression of learning, thoughts and societies are streaming with expanding speed too, engaged by the close to immediacy of worldwide web correspondences.

The Impact of Globalisation on Culture

Cultural globalization, which refers to the process by which one culture’s experiences, values, and ideas are disseminated throughout the world through various means.

Connections among globalization and culture don’t appear to be an on-going marvel. In fact, they constitute, particularly with the influence of globalization on culture, a contention point in the literature as various theoretical standpoints have been developed to examine these interactions. Moved by the productivity or intrigue of remote correspondences, electronic business, mainstream culture, and worldwide travel, globalization has been viewed as a pattern towards homogeneity that will eventually make human experience everywhere essentially the same. This appears, however, to be an overstatement of the phenomenon. Although homogenizing influences do indeed exist, they are far from creating anything akin to a single world culture.

Globalization has negative and positive effects on social identity. The principle effect of globalization on social identity is the spread of multinational corporations.

This encourages consumer culture and standardizes products and values. Culture has almost become a one-way operating manner of business. Social merchandise and enterprises delivered by rich and amazing nations have attacked all of universes markets, and left with troubles undeveloped nations which are not ready to stand up the challenge. The outcome is that these countries are unable to enter areas of influence occupied by worldwide organizations of developed ones and local products are replaced by mass products. However globalization influences cultural identity also in a good way. A long way from devastating effects, it has the most critical power in making and multiplying cultural identity.

Negative effects of globalization on culture

Consumerism

Huge worldwide organizations advance their items all around, and brands like Coca-Cola, KFC and Nike are predominant over the world. The negative impact of worldwide advertising is that neighbourhood organizations are pushed out of the market and the global organizations force American or European customer drifts on different societies. Similarly, the fast food industry promotes values of production efficiency. As a result, traditional cuisine appears less cost-effective and profitable than fast food, causing traditional food outlets to lose the opportunity to flourish, or even exist.

Poverty

Some United Nations members claim that globalization increases poverty particularly among young people, the old, women, indigenous peoples and migrants. An increase in poverty has a widespread cultural impact. In poor Asian economies, such as Bangladesh, Vietnam and Cambodia, large numbers of women now have work in garment export factories. Their wages are low by world standards however a lot higher than they would earn in alternative occupations. One way to reduce poverty in these groups is for well off nations to accept more imports from developing countries.

Language

Language is a key expression of cultural diversity. Critics of globalization claim it marginalizes some languages and may even cause some languages to die out. English as become the governing language, across the world. Certainly, English is broadly used as a second or third language, which helps the globalization of trade ; however, if business communities see more benefits in speaking Spanish or Chinese, they learn those instead. Since the world´s economies speak English, other languages have become less significant.

While globalization is by and large viewed as the procedure of worldwide reconciliation including organizations or associations, this trade of world perspectives, societies, and thoughts has dramatically affected training and the manner in which individuals learn dialects.

Conclusion

Cultural globalization simply narrows down the differences between everyone, possibly creating a much more productive environment. One criticism being slapped to cultural globalization is that it leans towards western ideology and other practices. It was increasingly similar to adjusting to the greatest impact, which on account of social globalization, is the United States of America. What appeared to be an interrelated connection of individuals everywhere throughout the world turned into an elective motivation to resemble western nations. Cultural globalization is also marked with some new trends in human relations. Acknowledgment of an overall environmental emergency, the development of worldwide concern about health problems such as AIDS and other diseases , augmentation of the idea of human rights and the making of worldwide vote based developments are a few examples of integration that is taking place between various states.

The Impact of Consumerism and Materialism on Modern American Society

For numerous amount of years, people have been compulsive consumers as the economy influenced materialism. Consumerism is the act of advertisements for getting people to buy what they don’t need even though they don’t have money. Materialism is considering materialistic possession for physical comfort instead of spiritual values. Usually, providing dishonest advertising, consumerism tricks shoppers into thinking they have to have that product to maintain their happiness. Sometimes people fall for the tricks and sneaky words of advertisements. Consumerism and materialism negatively affect society by manipulating the consumers’ wants vs. needs, and mood, while increasing debt. Whilst, being able to create a small and utopia in the consumer’s mind.

More money equals more problems. The more money somebody has the more they are eager to spend on things they don’t need. As DeAngelis states, “Compared with Americans in 1957, today we own twice as many cars per person, eat out twice as often and enjoy endless other commodities that weren’t around then”. Time has evolved and Americans have found more and more ways to spend their money on things they don’t necessarily need resulting in compulsive spending. Compulsive consumerism usually is noticeable during peak holidays such as Black Friday. According to Black Friday Death Counter, 7 deaths and 98 injuries have been reported from 2006-2014 from people being trampled and stampeded just for a ‘great deal’. This shows how careless people can get when they want something materialistic and would do anything to get it. Most people ditch their family Thanksgiving as well and that contributes to the compulsive consumerism.

People believe that the impulsive feeling that materialism produces is a natural human thing while others believe it’s mad. Taylor states, “Our mad materialism is partly a reaction to inner discontent”. Those who suffer from depression especially look for something to elevate their happiness levels. As society says, consumers run to stores looking for things to make them happy or make a significant other happy. According to Murray, “Self-doubt among those predisposed toward it, appears to intensify materialistic tendencies as well”. Young adults now also experience more depression which affects their views of consumerism and even fuels it. They grow up with less happiness and social awareness. Teens and young adults are usually affected by technology and the pressure of getting the latest gadget on the market. Which determines their social worth which in turn affects their mood.

Couples are also affected by consumerism. When a holiday such as Valentine Day arrives, there is a stigma of what to give someone. And lately, couples have been getting into arguments about what the value of the gift should be and how much gratitude is reflected. Researchers studied: “Materialism had a negative association with marital quality, even when spouses were unified in their materialistic values. Marriages in which both spouses reported low materialism were better off on several features of marital quality when compared to couples where one or both spouses reported high materialism”.

Insecurity is used by major brands to manipulate the consumer. In media, it is easier to make someone feel bad than good. Any makeup advertisement subconsciously tries to make the viewer believe that wearing their products is the only way to feel beautiful. In fact, in the International Journal of Dermatology, Sam says that “normal daily use of cosmetics can fulfill important psychological functions in that it promotes social and psychological well-being”. Advertisements make people go into a common cycle. First, the subject in the ad feels bad because something is missing in their lives. Then the product is displayed and the people using it seem happy and amazed. So, the subject has an aha moment and figures out that the product is the key to their happiness. Then the ad ends with an exaggerated happy ending and where to buy said product. Now when the viewer of this ad tries to evoke this in real life, they inadvertently set themselves up for disappointment and failure. The advertisement creates false hope for the viewer. But that does not matter to brands, what matters is if they bought or not.

Wants subconsciously turn into needs when impulsiveness comes into play with shopping habits. “I can buy it because I have it”, Thomas states. Consumerism is also the cause of increasing credit card debt in the United States. Ex-debtor and wife, Karen Thomas stated she was “just swiping and swiping away”. Thomas had spent her early, naive college years signing up for credit cards at booths located at the university. She never worried about a bill or a tab. She just swiped. Thomas’s addictive and compulsive behavior came back to bite her as her first card was declined. “Before the cards came in my happiness rate was at a 7 out of 10. While I had to card, I was on cloud 9. But when those cards were declined, I was instantly a 2. And it doesn’t feel good at all”, Thomas explains her happiness as her compulsive consumerism takes over. She felt the need to buy more as she got pulled into the game of materialistic madness. This is common for many people. Our society is heavily dependent on advertisements and they are easily worked into daily routines. The purpose of advertisements is to manipulate the viewer into buying or investing in the product. Thomas now feels comfort in couponing to find the best deals for wants and needs. “My credit was screwed. But it is getting better. Either way, the government will get their money as the economy needs our taxes. So, why not start couponing?”. When asked her views on materialism and if she has ever been materialistic, she responds, “I’m not materialistic at all. I don’t care about those things. Couponing gives me comfort. Not a brand new purse”.

On the other hand, materialism can have a bigger picture. De Angelis believes, “Even if some materialists swim through life with little distress, however, consumerism carries larger costs that are worth worrying about, others say”. Materialism can create a positive influence on people as they strive to find their utopia. For example, in the California Gold Rush people from all around the U.S. flocked to California to hope they would strike gold. But also, they hoped to find a better life as the old Hollywood era was peaking and opportunities were everywhere. People turn to anything to make them feel happy. Usually, the word success comes into play when thinking about happiness. It is believed in our society that the more money you have, the more successful you become, the happier you become.

People see this as an issue more recently. And with all the confusion that media can give, there is some hope when it comes to keeping your wants and needs separate. Youtuber Stacey Flowers believes in the art of budgeting and buying smarter. She uses Dave Ramsey’s Financial Peace University program to plan her finances throughout the year. The program uses a 7-step outline to help pay off her debt. Her videos consist of bullet journaling, organizing, and productivity vlogs. Her goal is to “Be 100% debt-free and live by cash” to pay off her $208,453.27 debt. She stresses to her subscribers that “you will not pay off your debt in one year. What I am coming on here to say is that I am on this journey and this is what it looks like”.

In conclusion, consumerism and materialism are believed to be two of the human instincts we have and can’t do anything about while it is also believed to be the one downfall of our society. Of course, there will be times when people buy things they don’t necessarily need. But there is an understanding of what the consumer wants and why they are purchasing that item. When you turn into a compulsive consumer, the line between the words ‘want’ and ‘need’ becomes blurred. Causing people to feel like they ‘need’ everything that gives them a spark of joy. The belief of a utopia affects how people think. Obsessed with happiness and comfort, people result to splurging, spending, and shopping, just to fill the void that makes them unhappy. Let’s face it, when going through a bad time, we turn to the one thing that would make us happy…spending money on ourselves. But you shouldn’t spend it compulsively. Especially when there are other responsibilities that are in effect. People think they could have all the things they want in the world and create their utopia of happiness. But again, it’s a human instinct to be perfect. To be the person you want to be and spend all the money you want. But next time really think about the effects a material item can give you.

Reflections on How Materialism Led to the Development of a Two-Dimensional Society

In ‘The Century of the Self’, Adam Curtis sketches a broad image on the insights of psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud, his daughter and child psychologist Anna and his cousin Edward Bernays, who can be called the founder of public relations. In 4 parts the documentary lays out the influence of the above-mentioned in governments and societies, which mostly happened through manipulation and consumerism. Edward Bernays is called the father of public relations because of his ability to get the mass to consume or desire whatever he wants them to consume or desire. This started when commercials and advertising started to boom in the 50s. With this time also came technological improvements. Here is when people discovered that life was not centred solely around family, church and community. People discovered things. Fancy cars, radio’s, dressing to impress. For the first time people were being exposed to advertising everywhere they went, on the street, in shops, on the radio. Buying was everywhere. The advertisements were built so that it would trigger the mass to buy and consume.

Not only did the new technological improvements bring a more differentiated range of products, it also brought out differences between the same products. Some cars went faster than others, some fabrics were more luxurious and some radios sounded just a bit sharper than some others. Because the economy was thriving at this point, people were also able to buy these technological, state of the art, products. At a time where community feeling was still very important, this freedom to consume could lead to a feeling of competition. Wanting a car that’s more ingenious than your neighbors, wearing the newest season skirts to church to have all the people looking, and so on. People wanted other people to know they were wealthy enough to buy the best items. Something that still exists to this day. For example, if you would put one person all alone on an island, it would never pay 100 euros for a polo shirt with a crocodile on it, because no one would be there to witness. No one would care if the shirt was designer’s or not.

At the base of these events lies image, the way people are looked at. Wearing designer clothes, driving fancy cars, it gives people the impression that a person is wealthy and successful enough to buy these types of things. The preservation of this image then leads to consumerism. More expensive clothes, a new car, renovating your house until it becomes the masses dreamhouse. We can ask ourselves some very important underlying questions. When Edward Bernays talked about people’s desires, was he really talking about their own desires? Of course, he anticipated on the mass’ desires, but it seems to me he was aiming more at the mass’ desire of image. Does the mass really desire having luxurious fabrics around their bodies, or is it desired that other people can see these fabrics?

When people started to consume more, started to desire more, started to buy more, a new societal mechanism started to develop itself: materialism. When tangible possessions become more important than becoming spiritually enriched, we can speak of materialism.

The origins of materialism can be found long before society could even catch a glimpse of technology and globalization. In Christianity, for example, holy relics like statues, artwork and other material things are used to get in contact with the higher spirit, meaning God. In Belgium a cross is often found hanging above a doorstep to have God protect your home and everyone in it. These materials were thus used to give people a feeling of comfort and harmony within themselves.

Given this argument, it is important to ask ourselves the question where and why exactly this took a different turn. A great part of the answer can be found in capitalism and its link to globalization. The goods, people started buying because of the advertisements they saw, were sold by private companies. Because of rising free-market economies, more firms entered the market and competition rose. Multiple companies offered little differentiated products, or they tried intensively to bring completely new concepts to the market. When the process of globalization arose, the labor process of products was shifted to other countries where it was cheaper for companies to fabricate the products. Because it became cheaper, more time and money could be invested in developing even more products to sell, which led to a market overflowing with different ranges of products. Given this broad market and a thriving economy, consumers were exposed to a massive amount of differentiated products. This freedom of choice, comes with some cons as well. In 2000 a study was published by psychologists Sheena Iyengar and Mark Lepper, known as the jam experiment. In a supermarket two tasting booths were displayed. One booth had 24 different flavors of jam to try out, while the other one had only 6. It is expected that people would buy more when there’s 24 different pots of jam displayed, but the contrary seemed to be true. Consumers bought 10 times less when the there was a big display of jam. This encounters a phenomenon that can be called the paradox of freedom of choice. Having the possibility to choose between a broad range of products, gives consumers the chance to find a product that fits within their needs, but it also makes it more difficult for them to be completely satisfied with the choice that is made. When talked about jam this satisfaction is less relevant, but when talked about other, more radical choices that are given, certain feelings can arise: guilt, doubting if the choice made actually is the right one and knowing you left some other good choices behind. Freedom of choice can in that way lead to a paradox feeling of oppression.

The paradox of freedom of choice is only one challenge coming with consumerism. People that are less wealthy than others often face the desire wanting to be as wealthy as the more fortunate. Unfortunately, being wealthier, and thus having an even bigger freedom of choice, does not always result in people being happier. Emile Durkheim described different types of suicide, with one of them being anomic suicide. Anomic suicide occurs when people want to take their own life because of having too much freedom. When people win the lottery for example, special psychological support is offered to help them cope with the life changes that come along with winning a grand amount of money.

It is clear that more money and more choice does not always make consumers happier, but we can also ask ourselves what happiness means when there is an overflow in wealth and materialism. In 2015 Sandie McHugh published a study that was already once done in 1938. They asked participants what happiness meant to them and we can conclude that our idea of happiness has changed over time. In 1938 people listed security, knowledge and religion as the three most important factors for happiness. When looked at the results in 2014, people still attached importance to security as it was still in the top 3, but good humor and leisure replaced religion and knowledge. It is known for most people that since the process of secularization, the importance of religion decreased in most people’s lives. Not having knowledge in the top 3 might be even more problematic.

We see lawyers and bankers in fancy clothing we would love to afford, but what goes missing is what preceded in having this amount of wealth. Successful people are successful for a reason. By working hard, having a good degree or just being smart enough to make some things work. Unfortunately, what is seen is only the results of these capacities: their wealth. The essence of becoming wealthy often goes missing because of people’s way of thinking. Materialism makes society see only the substantive side of things. Rich people post photos on Instagram posing in a €1,000 suit in front of a 10 times more expensive cars, but they will not post their tired face after working for their fortune the whole day.

In modern day society it has also become easier for people to show their wealth and materials. Even if we would put someone alone on an island, maybe it would still spend 100 euros on a crocodile shirt because creating an image is only one Instagram or Facebook post away. Anno 2019 being an influencer is an actual profession that can make someone a lot of money just by showing materials on social media. Other people’s wealth is all out there and it makes people want to have the same. The fact that people want to have luxurious products for quality is understandable, but let us not forget that there is a huge market for fake designer clothing or other counterfeit products. People buy plastic Louis Vuitton bags in Turkey or China just for the status symbol, which has nothing to do with the quality or authenticity of the product.

Christian Louboutin for example is a French shoe designer selling shoes with a red sole for prices varying between 650 and 7000 euros. The red soles are a status symbol and are often bought from the counterfeit market for people who cannot afford the real ones. What is lost here is the essence of the authenticity of the brand. Louboutins are created in Europe, are made by craftsmanship and his designs are known to be avant-garde in the world of designer shoes. Buying the ones that only look like them, but not made just as fair, messes with the foundation of haute couture.

It is of course difficult to scientifically prove that our society has become more superficial because of materialism, but some patterns can definitely be noticed and linked to both materialism and consumerism. Having the freedom to consume goods and being consistently exposed to other people’s wealth and even more choices to consume, makes materials rise in importance, sometimes at the cost of other factors. It is not so that our society should be totally looked at as a two-dimensional one, as there is still a lot of demand for spiritual depth through a constant flow of books, documentaries or people trying give life a more in-depth perspective, but it is noticeable that the importance of goods and consuming have risen over the last century.

References

1. British Psychological Society (BPS). (2015, May 4). How our view of what makes us happy has changed in 80 years. ScienceDaily. Retrieved April 24, 2019 from https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150504210704.htm
2. Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (2000). When Choice Is Demotivating: Can One Desire Too Much of a Good Thing? The Construction of Preference, , 300–322. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511618031.017
3. The School of Life. (2017, January 25). Are we too Materialistic? [Video file]. Retrieved April 25, 2019, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24L7r7SoK_Y

Types of Environmental Pollution Essay

Environment consists of air, water, earth, flora fauna, human beings, their activities, trees and plants. Environmer sustains and supports our life. All the elements of environment ar life supporting. Hence arises the question of protection of ou environment. Environment is a very complex and comprehensive phenomenon. Minerals, climate, geography, geology etc are it: integral parts.

Causes of pollution: There are many factors causing high and intolerable pollution. Consumerism is one of them. The rapidly increasing consumerism gets changed and worsens the condition. Man on earth is a single powerful agent of the environment. Instead of making efforts to adapt himself to the environment, he tries foolishly to change it to suit his consumerism.

Many luxurious items like refregarator, air conditioner, room refreshener etc being increasingly used are causing irreparable damages to our protective layer of ozone because of the dangerous chemical called CFCs. The chlorine atoms cleased from hole on our ozone umbrellas over the Anterctic and the gaping hole is increasing fast in its size.

The selfindulgence of our consumerism is also expediting human doors. The use of plastics is a villain of the peace. So the use of harmful substances should be phased at the earliest. Quality of life is one of the most important indicators of development. No development, worth its name, can be at the cost of people’s health. Since health and progress always go together, the former is another name of pollution free environment.

As individuals, we cannot progress, prosper, and be productive in a polluted atmosphere. Material affluence is meaningless amidst poisoned air, dirty water, choking air, deafening noise, and heap of dirt of dust all around. Development should be sustainable without the cost of the environment. It is an ongoing process but not a one-time affair.

We should remember that the progress and protection of the environment are suicidal and reminds us of the utterly foolish farmer who killed the goose out of greed to have all the eggs at a time or in one go.

Mills and factories: Mills, factories, and industries play an important role in development. But they have proved counterproductive. They have been discharging toxic chemicals and other wastes into the environment. Industrial and economic development should be such as not to deplete natural resources and damage and degrade the environment.

Unfortunately, man has been masterminding his own doom and destruction in the name of Industrialisation and development. Deforestation on a large scale is causing great harm to our environment, as well as the ecological system. Bio-diversity is in danger and many species of animals, birds, and plants are extinct and many more of them are on the verge of extinction.

Changing climate: The change in climate affects seriously to our environment. Overpopulation has also put a tremendous pressure on natural resources, and environment. The level of ground water is going down for pumping out excessive water. The use of artificial and chemical fertilizer has enormously quickened this process of land and water degradation.

Brick kilns: Most people are not aware and conscious of it. They throw plastics, garbage, trash, ashes, sludge, useless bottles, cans, bags etc here and there. Then they get rotten and dumped and then make the environment dirty, stinky and polluted. These harmful things need a proper checking for protection of the environment.

Brick kilns have been continuing to ravage our environment. Despite repeated concern environmentalists there seem expressed by brickfields which are not only environmental hazards but also a to be no steps taken against the threat to our limited forest resources as well. Every year thousands of trees are cut down in order to make bricks.

The pollutants produced by the brickfields are a result of the combustion of wood, coal, digging of brick earth, and the wastes generated in the form of rubbish. Outdated kiln construction leads to excessive air leakage. Conventional small chimney leads to excessive temperature.

The Department of Environment should be more proactive to deal with the menace. Almost all brick kilns in the country do not follow the Brick Kiln Ordinance. The land on which the kilns are built becomes less fertile, the thick black smoke causes health problems like nausea, headache, asthma, etc as well as skin diseases.

Remedy: Since we are the members of an environment. We want its remedy to make a suitable environment. It is an urgent need to create awareness among the ignorant and uncareful people. If this does not become fruitful, tough and necessary steps should be taken against those who are guilty of polluting the environment. Such people should heavily be fined, taxed and even sentenced to jail. Anti-pollution law should be made, enforced and strictly practiced.

The Department of Environment has made it compulsory For the brickfield owners to install 120 feet high chimneys in all kilns. But surely there must be a policy in place to regulate the unplanned and the unauthorized placement of brick kilns all around the country. For the protection of the environment, necessary steps should immediately be taken because there exists a direct correlation between environmental conditions and our health and psychological Junctions.

Conclusion: A certain balance between the various elements that go into the making of our environment is also essential for keeping it healthy, vibrant, and life-sustaining. Any imbalance caused by the addition of too much undesirable, substance in the air, water, natural resources, etc results in pollution. Besides natural resources, the nation’s real wealth is the people. Each and every nation wants human development to the maximum. As man is the crowning glory of creation, so his activities should aim at giving a man a long, healthy, meaningful, happy, and creative life. For environmental protection, we must bring to bear every means at our command to get the menace on a war footing.

Critical Review of Zygmunt Bauman’s Article ‘The Self in a Consumer Society’

This critical review will be analyzing the article ‘The Self in a Consumer Society’ by Zygmunt Bauman (1999). The article is concerned with consumer culture, the economic differences it produces in a postmodern era, and the confines it creates primarily for the working class. To review the article, I aim to summarize and review these points through evaluations and judgements. I chose this article as I believe it is relevant in our current environment as we are constantly consuming not only, products but also the media as society develops.

Primarily, Bauman argues that society has changed and moved away from a “producer society” to a “consumer society” (Bauman, 1999, p.36). The former was prevalent during the modern, industrial society and is one in which deferred gratification was more sought after than the instant gratification found in a consumer society, established in the current postmodern era. This move occurred as society developed, we no longer require a mass industrial labor force but rather a need for consumers. As well as this, Bauman also suggests that consumerism in society is an ongoing process as the consumer needs to be repeatedly exposed to new experiences as the consumer is in itself a collection of experiences; “first and foremost gathers of sensations” (Bauman, 1999, p.38). He indicates that it is these experiences that mean “everybody may wish to be a consumer and indulge in the opportunities which that mode of life holds, but not everybody can be a consumer” (Bauman, 1999, p.40). This raises the idea of social mobility. He suggests the upper class and lower classes are immobile whereas consumers can move along mobility lines as they have the power to identify where they wish to be. Concerning this, he states that those ‘high up’ can choose where their destination is and those ‘low down’ are unable to move as their fates are predetermined by others.

Bauman’s article can be praised for establishing the experiences of a consumer and the type of society we live in today (a consumer society). He acknowledges that there is the possibility of the desire found in experiencing consumerism as “dissipating” and leaving “a world with nothing left in it to be desired” (Bauman, 1999, p.38). This can be supported by Clarke as it reinforces Bauman’s argument that objects and experiences can no longer be desired: “There are recognized downsides to all these areas of expanded freedom of choice. In respect of material abundance, there is the waste that comes from overconsumption and the increasingly transitory sense of meaning that is sustained by goods and services which are discretionary rather than essential” (Clarke, 2010, p.18). Here, it can be identified that where Bauman neglects to explore how desire in consumerism can dissipate, Clarke does not, making their perspective more comprehensible through the use of examples.

Bauman’s article can be critiqued to an extent due to its vagueness and generalizations. For instance, he implied that everyone aims to be a consumer. However, I believe that this is not the case if they are aware that they are being somewhat exploited into following the ruling class ideology. This coincides with Marxists like Althusser, who believe that consumerism is a piece of ideological state apparatus used by the upper class to enhance the benefits they gain from capitalism and keep control of society in an economical fashion (Althusser, 1971). This is accomplished through a variety of methods and the consumers simply have little choice but to comply with the false consciousness enacted upon them. Another weakness of Bauman’s article is when he makes a sweeping generalization as he suggests that social mobility is capable of the consumers. This can be critiqued when applying the Marxist sociologist Bourdieu as he states social order is continuously instilled in people’s minds through education, values, language and activities of everyday life (Bourdieu, 1986). Hence, this is contradicting Bauman as Bourdieu is arguing that consumers have no freedom to choose their social class due to the ongoing ruling class ideology being enforced upon them. Here it can be argued that Bourdieu’s perspective is stronger as he gives relevant examples to back up his argument, the same cannot be stated for Bauman.

Furthermore, Bauman’s perspective can arguably be further criticized by Marxists as it fails to reference the use of consumerism in a negative light thoroughly. For instance, traditional Marxists see capitalism as criminogenic meaning they believe capitalism is a crime itself because of its unequal nature in which the rich exploit the poor and also that capitalism is the cause of crime because the working class are forced to commit a crime to redistribute the wealth. For example, crime may be the only way they can obtain consumer goods which are encouraged by capitalism. This may portray how the consumer society we live in can enhance social class differences and how some of the lower classes are unable to participate in consumerism due to their lack of economic wealth. Bauman can be interpreted as being aware of this in his article as he references that the lower classes have little control over their destinations but can still be criticized for not fully expanding this. Personally, I would agree with the traditional Marxist view that capitalism plays a key part in consumerism and amplifies social class inequalities as I also believe with Althusser’s idea that it acts as an ideological state apparatus.

Moreover, the idea that consumerism benefits capitalism is supported by the Marxist-feminist Zaretsky who believed the family benefits capitalism and one of the ways it does this is through consumerism as the family provides a cushion for false consciousness created because of it (Zaretsky, 1976). This theory criticized Bauman’s as it identifies the negativity that can be portrayed in consumer society to keep the working class in a cycle of oppression. However, even though Bauman’s work can be criticized by Marxists, they too can be criticized as Weber would argue that Marxists are economic determinists meaning they focus too much on economics and fail to consider other options for class inequality.

In summary, whilst Bauman’s points are logical, they can be argued as being somewhat narrow-minded simply as they fail to show a strong view countering his own. An instance of this is when he fails to fully mention the negative side of consumerism and simply explains the qualities of a consumer and the opportunities that can be gained or lost. This in my opinion creates a weak article as it is unable to withstand contradicting theories, mainly the work from Marxism.

Essay on Acquisition of Money and Possessions

Introduction to Consumerism and its Implications

Twenty-first-century America is an extremely consumerist society. Seventy percent of its GDP comes from consumption (Kulman 58). It has more shopping malls than it has high schools. An average American spends six hours shopping every week, while only forty minutes of the same week goes to playing with their children (Frantz).

A consumerist attitude has long been connected to things external. In his book “The High Price of Materialism,” Tim Kasser connects consumers with extrinsic goals, which he relates to seeking satisfaction from external sources and focusing on image, fame, and money (Kasser). In a consumerist society, individuals strive for possessions and money, an appealing image, and high status, a lifestyle that has both positive and negative implications. Consumerism, emphasizing money and possessions, does foster economic growth. Marsha L.Richins connects a purposeful pursuit of wealth to the success of the Industrial Revolution and capitalistic production and explains that a desire for goods may motivate workers to work harder and longer. She also notes that high levels of consumption bring more wealth to businesses, which would then lead to more investments in research and therefore greater productivity (Richins and Rudmin 217). However, consumerism has also been linked to lower life satisfaction and well-being, and movements like minimalism have risen to combat its ideals and values. As a matter of fact, The World Happiness Report explains that America is not a happy society; happiness levels among American adults have been on a gradual decline since 2000 (Twenge). These two conflicting aspects of consumerism bring up a question: Do the economic benefits of consumerism, a culture that emphasizes extrinsic goals, offset its negative effects on life evaluation in twenty-first-century America? The following report attempts to answer this question by examining the effects of consumerism on life evaluation in America from philosophical, scientific, and sociocultural perspectives and evaluating its economic benefits and their impact on happiness.

Philosophical and Religious Critique of Consumerism

Connecting consumerism, especially its aspect of striving for money and possessions, with unhappiness has a long history. Have you Renounced Pleasure? The Dalai Lama criticizes modern materialism for having individuals stuck in a permanent cycle of striving for external stimuli and preventing individuals from experiencing long-term, deep happiness (Have you Renounced Pleasure). The main ideas of Buddhism oppose “attachment” to things other than oneself. “Look within. Be still, free from fear and attachment,” says the Buddha (Mundahl 66). Likewise, Christianity also attacks materialistic desires; The Apostle Paul explains that desires to gain wealth lead individuals to temptation and to ruin themselves (Baylor University Thing).

Scientific Insights on Consumerism and Well-being

Scientific findings confirm these ancient philosophies, revealing that extrinsic goals are connected to decreased life satisfaction and well-being. In Aspirations and Well-being: Extrinsic vs. Intrinsic Life Goals, Majda Rijavec et al. measured the psychological needs and well-being of students and evaluated the relationship between these two and different goal orientations. Students focused on extrinsic goals were found to have the second-lowest scores, meaning they were the second unhappiest, following right after students with neither extrinsic nor intrinsic goals. The results of the study make it very clear that extrinsic goals are detrimental to one’s well-being. Likewise, in Consumerism and its Discontents, Tori DeAngelis explains that a consumerist inclination, which he then connects to extrinsic goals, can lead to unhappiness by “taking time away from things that can nurture happiness.” Extrinsic goals distract individuals from what can actually make them happy — for instance, a solid relationship with friends — and can lead to decreased life satisfaction (DeAngelis).

Furthermore, research shows that extrinsic goals can be harmful to the process of defining one’s own identity. Research from the Journal of Youth and Adolescence presents a study in which pursuing extrinsic goals positively predicted ruminative exploration, meaning individuals with extrinsic goal orientations were more vulnerable to getting lost on their way to finding their identity. The writers also add that as these individuals increasingly move away from their inner self, their extrinsic goals eventually start to serve as a “compensatory mechanism,” eventually developing an “alienated sense of self.” (Luyckx)

Sociocultural Perspective and Addiction

From a sociocultural perspective, consumerism can lead to an even more serious problem: addiction. In Our Consuming Interest, Linda Kulman describes consumerism as “a competitive business, with a constant ratcheting up of expectations.” As individuals constantly compare themselves to what they see in the media and mass branding insists them to shop, even more, individuals get stuck in a cycle of constant buying from which they cannot easily escape (Kulman 58). Forced to join the competition, individuals living in consumerist cultures are eventually urged and compelled to do something that they actually do not want to do. The problem with consumerism and addiction does not stop there: consumerism and its strive for an appealing image and high status have also been linked to drug addiction. Tammy Ayres, a lecturer in criminology with a Ph.D. in Drug-Crime Relationships, explains that living in a consumerist culture makes individuals more vulnerable to drug addictions, as consumerism supports perfectionism and pressures people. Drugs can serve as a solution to the harmful subjectivities, imperfections, and pressures individuals experience under such perfectionism (Ayres 20).

Economic Benefits and Life Satisfaction

Despite these findings, consumerist ideas are still advocated for the economic benefits they bring. In Materialism, Spending, and Affect: An Event-Sampling Study of Marketplace Behavior and Its Affective Costs, Kirk Warren Brown et al. conducted a study in which participants were asked to take tests that would measure their materialistic desires, emotional state, and annual income and to record their spending (the product they bought and its price) every time they bought something of $5 or more for three weeks. According to the study’s results, individuals with more materialistic desires were found to spend more (Brown 2277). Keynesian economics supports such an increase in spending, characterizing spending as “the most important driving force” of an economy, and argues that governments should intervene to stimulate spending at times of recession (Jahan et al.). Indeed, the pursuit of material possessions can eventually lead to a better economy.

The argument on consumerism and economic benefits is furthered by the claims that this economic success leads to increased life satisfaction. That is, the pursuit of possessions and money can lead to happiness, while it is detrimental to one’s satisfaction in some other cases. In High Income Improves Evaluation of Life But Not Emotional Well-Being, Daniel Kahneman and Angus Deaton prove this point by studying the relationship between emotional well-being, life evaluation, and income. In their research, Kahneman and Deaton define emotional well-being as “the emotional quality of an individual’s everyday experience” and life evaluation as “a person’s thoughts about his or her life.” According to their results, although income does not contribute to emotional well-being, it does predict higher life evaluation (Kahneman and Deaton 16489). Therefore, their research shows that economic success brought by consumerism can lead to greater life satisfaction. Survey data from seven different countries collected by Joseph Sirgy et al. adds support to this claim. In their research, Joseph Sirgy et al. hypothesized that although materialism may lead to lower life satisfaction when materialistic individuals evaluate their life using “fantasy-based expectations,” it may have the opposite effect when “reality-based expectations” are used, as doing so would cause individuals to feel more economically motivated than non-materialistic individuals, an attitude that the researchers explain may substantially increase one’s life satisfaction. The results of the survey supported their hypothesis, therefore showing not only the fact that the desire for money and possessions can lead to economic motivation but also that economic motivation can lead to happiness (Sirgy 349). This adds to the argument that the economic success brought by consumerist thinking can lead to better life evaluations.

Balancing Extrinsic and Intrinsic Goals

The argument on both sides, one criticizing the pursuit of extrinsic goals that characterize consumerism for its negative impact on individuals’ life satisfaction and the other supporting it for its economic benefits and the increase of life satisfaction accompanying these benefits seem to conflict with each other. However, the two arguments both have limitations. In a study conducted by James E. Burroughs, presented in the Journal of Consumer Research (Vol.29, No.3), people with both strong materialistic and prosocial values that conflicted with each other when decisions are being made were found to be the unhappiest group of their research, while other groups had similar, but less life stress. Burroughs explained that materialism becomes problematic only when it becomes more important than “things that really matter” (Burroughs 348). The Self-Determination Theory, which states that extrinsic goals have negative consequences on well-being when it is so strong it goes out of balance with intrinsic goals, conforms with this argument (Rijavec et al. 693). These ideas explain why there may be arguments that consumerism can lead to an increased level of life satisfaction when there is abundant evidence that shows the opposite result. Although the problem with addiction caused by the pursuit of extrinsic goals shows such a goal orientation has some inherent characteristics connected to unhappiness, an argument that would contradict Burrough’s claim that materialism itself is okay, Burrough’s idea and the Self-Determination Theory effectively limit the benefits of extrinsic goals: increased life satisfaction from economic success accompanying those goals can be experienced only when they do not go in conflict with intrinsic goals.

In more positive terms, this means that finding satisfaction from external sources can help improve life satisfaction as long as the individual successfully maintains the balance of those desires with his or her inner self. However, this process is extremely difficult. Living in an extremely consumerist society like twenty-first-century America, individuals will easily fall into a life of emphasizing extrinsic goals. In Culture and Consumer Behavior: The Role of Horizontal and Vertical Cultural Factors, Sharon Shavitt and Hyewon Cho explains that culture shapes consumers’ goals. In their research, they categorized different societies into two culture categories: vertical, ones that emphasize hierarchy or status, and horizontal, ones that value equality. They also described advertisements as “cultural artifacts that shed light on the goals and values of a society” and explained that vertical societies, which included the United States, were found to have advertisements that value status and prestige. This showed that its people had the same goals and values as their overall culture. Shavitt and Cho also added that consumers prefer brand concepts with the same orientation as their society to ones that do not (Shavitt and Cho). Their research proves that the goal orientations of individual consumers are shaped by the culture in which they live. In the U.S., where external values are overemphasized, valuing extrinsic goals over intrinsic goals may be a natural process for many. In addition, the Overjustification Effect explains that offering an external reward for one’s performance can decrease the individual’s motivation for the activity: an extrinsic reward can easily weaken the initial intrinsic motivation that the individual had (“Overjustification Effect”). The effect presents the idea that intrinsic goals are weaker than extrinsic goals; one’s intrinsic goals can easily be taken over by the power of external rewards. As a result, it is clear that enjoying increased life satisfaction from the economic achievements fostered by extrinsic motivations by balancing those goals with inner, deeper desires is very difficult. Therefore, the economic benefits of consumerism fail to offset its negative effects on individuals’ life satisfaction.

Minimalism as an Alternative Lifestyle

Minimalism, a movement that calls for a life characterized by a focus on “everything that remains” and throwing away excessive goods, has been presented as a solution to the problems caused by consumerism. Joshua Fields Millburn and Ryan Nicodemus, the founders of The Minimalist, explain their experience with the movement. Ryan, who felt depressed and stagnant even as he was earning more than 100,000 dollars a year, changed his life when he decided to live as a minimalist and is now happily enjoying his life. Combating against extrinsic goals and focusing on relationships, community, and self-growth (intrinsic goals), minimalism is linked to increased life satisfaction. Schmuck explains that as opposed to extrinsic goals, intrinsic goals satisfy “innate psychological needs” and therefore are “inherently satisfying to pursue” (Schmuck et al. 225)

Despite its obvious benefit for life satisfaction, minimalism has been criticized for the fact that it is a movement not accessible to all. In The Class Politics of Decluttering, Stephanie Land argues that people living in poverty do not benefit from minimalism: those people cannot “live with less,” as they already live only with what they really need. However, the lower class suffers less from the inherent problems of consumerist culture and therefore less requires changes. Majda Rijavec et al. reason that in poor countries, extrinsic goals can work as means for achieving intrinsic goals as they explain why students with both high extrinsic and intrinsic goals were found to be the happiest group in their study (Rijavec et al. 693). Their explanation demonstrates that in poorer settings, the balance between extrinsic and intrinsic goals can be more easily maintained, therefore having a weaker connection between extrinsic goals and psychological harm.

Conclusion: Re-evaluating Consumerism and Exploring Alternatives

Consumerism, a culture that seeks satisfaction from external sources, has been linked to both a decreased level of life satisfaction and economic success. Ideas from ancient philosophy to recent scientific research support the idea that consumerist thinking can lead to unhappiness, while others claim that it can bring economic success, which would then lead to increased life evaluation. These two conflicting ideas are resolved by the argument that extrinsic goals are harmful only when it goes in conflict with intrinsic goals, although this argument may not be entirely true considering the effects of pursuing high status on drug addictions. This idea shows that the benefits of consumerism can be enjoyed only when individuals maintain their balance with intrinsic goals, an extremely difficult process. Minimalism, a movement that strives to focus on what really matters in one’s life, has been presented as an idea to combat such an unhappy culture. While the movement has been criticized for only serving the middle and upper class, the lower class the movement excludes is less affected by the problems it combats. These ideas do not mean Americans should completely ignore their former lifestyles and move on to embrace minimalism; rather, it simply reveals the problems deeply connected to consumerism and suggests alternative ways of viewing life.

Consumerism in Fight Club: Analytical Essay

Introduction

Semeiotics is the study of symbols and signs a communication system that relies on a visual metaphor to communicate information in the most culturally universal instinctual way. Explored in film first by Peter Wollen in his book “Signs and their Meanings” Peter put forward symbols as integral communication devices to help progress story and meaning.

Fight Club was originally a book written by Chuck Palahniuk in 1996 and later adapted into a screenplay by Jim Uhls. It is a grim story that outlines the gross levels of consumerism in our society as well as the dangers of cults, the story revolves around a man, “the Narrator”, who rejects his reality by creating a personality that is able to reject and rebel against the lifestyle which he feels is corrupting the way we live our lives.

This essay will focus on how Fight club portrays the perversion of spiritual and emotional fulfillment in the modern age through grotesque consumerism and the degradation of the American dream and how damaging it can be too the emotional and spiritual health of a person. These topics will be discussed mostly through the semiotics of the art direction of Fight club and how both David Fincher and Alex McDowell’s design choices added to both the experience of the film as well as to the meaning behind, emphasizing key story moments and how said design choices communicated the underlying themes and motifs of the original story, to ultimately sign the perversion of the American dream through excessive consumerism and how the acquisition of material goods and wealth has taken priority over living a meaningful life.

Consumerism.

One of the main themes of Fight Club is Consumerism, and how it corrupts our dreams and aspirations. For the Narrator the taint consumes his whole life, he gives us a description of how it affects him in the beginning of the film, things like insomnia which make everyday tasks feel like “a copy of a copy” (the Narrator, 00:04:07), this is followed by a scene of an empty apartment being filled with expensive things, it is at this point that the Narrator claims “Like so many others, I had become a slave to the IKEA nesting instinct.” (the Narrator, 00:04:48). This is an important distinction in the consumer culture as it “draws attention to society’s infatuation and obsession with materialism.” (Nikolai Christofferson).

The acquiring of worldly goods in the beginning of the film is likened to obtaining the American dream, the Narrator spends his time and money on inconsequential things to fill up his apartment in the hopes of achieving some sort of happiness and or enlightenment. “I was close to being complete” (the Narrator, 00:29:37) the Narrator reveals to Tyler Durden when all of his accumulated wealth has crumbled to ash, this is an indexical signifier of how much control over our lives we give to the items we want, that there is almost a pathological need for them.

There is also a clear visual metaphor where the idea of the American dream literally rots away for the Narrator as he goes from a clean ordered apartment to a rotting house and finally the absolute destruction of buildings at the end of the film, this escalates in tandem with the Narrator’s relationship and subsequent merging with Tyler in the end. The decaying and ultimate destruction of the buildings also grows in scale throughout the film signifying the Narrator’s state of mind and mental health as the film progresses, as he starts to slowly spiral into the insanity of Tyler Durden who gives him the freedom to break away from his old ways until finally at the end of the film with the ‘ultimate’ destruction the Narrator will have gained a level of enlightenment that he had lacked throughout the film.

The sickly nature of consumerism is also told through Tyler Durden’s Soap Business, by taking a consumable product ei a soap bar and explaining the process of how it comes from human fat from a liposuction clinic. David finches is alluding to both the lack of care in which we as a society get our products (just so long as we are still able to acquire said products) and the amount of waste that is left over from the gluttonous process. While the example in the film may be an exaggeration the message still stands, as it shows the complete willful ignorance of society and the lack of motivation to change their living situation.

The obsessive consumerist lifestyle is visualized throughout the film using recognizable brand names and logos which are littered throughout the movie often cluttering the backgrounds of specific shots. According to Tim Pelan from Cinetropolis, David Fincher claims that there is a Starbucks coffee cup in every scene this of course is one of the biggest signifiers of consumerism throughout the film as Starbucks is such an iconic brand. David Fincher also uses “visual and auditory elements that imitate advertising tactics.” (Nikolai Christofferson) such as fast cuts and an almost catalog-like approach to explaining how certain goals are achieved in the film, for example, the explosion sequence in the narrator’s apartment, or the description of project mayhems plans, and definitely for the Ikea scene in the Narrator’s Apartment. It is important to note that along with material gain in Fight Club the narrator is also looking for truthful validation from other people, which is portrayed by him going to all sorts of different support groups and faking that he has all sorts of chronic or terminal disabilities. It is at these support groups where he can get the full attention of another human being who does not have any ulterior motives. This in itself is a criticism of the selfishness of the American dream and the consumer lifestyle, the selfishness and narcissism is what eventually spiral the Narrator to into very literal and visual destruction.

Art Direction

From all the visual cues we can assume that the target audience for the fight club is for the younger masculine viewer, as the film boasts testosterone-fueled fights with a dark and gritty aesthetic. We can break down the meaning behind the aesthetics into 4 main groups; Colour, Lighting, Shape Language and Compositional Techniques.

Colour

“But instead of merely focusing on the internal and external forces affecting the characters, Fincher makes it a point to utilize the environment’s color palette in expressing conflict as well. For Fincher, everything in the shot is an extension of the characters and should reflect their dilemmas.” (Matt Vasiliauska)

Fight Club sports a mostly subdued color scheme made up of dull greys, blacks, whites, and some neutral greens. Browns and blues all of which when combined give a certain sickly or unhealthy feeling to the film. This supports the obviously ‘unwell’ Narrator who has to attend various support groups by faking problems to feel validated as well as the less than obvious split personality reveal at the end. Key moments and characters that act as catalysts of the film are emphasized with bright overly saturated warm colors usually varying shades of reds and oranges, these moments are both alluring to the Narrator as they are dangerous, the danger symbol, which will be further expanded upon later in this essay, is what gives the Narrator a choice in his life which he does not feel has been pre-decided for him by larger corporations.

“color itself has that inherent emotional property. It means that

It can elicit that physical and emotional response from the audience.” (Patti Bellatoni, page 26)

The color scheme of or surrounding the characters also help to communicate specific characteristics and personality traits. The colors that surround the Narrator are always dull neutral colors, most often whites, greys, and browns and even when reds occur on him in they are subdued sickly reds unlike the bright vibrant colors of Tyler Durden whom is the opposite force of everything in the narrator’s life. In the case of Tyler, his colors are so bright and vibrant with the purpose of looking like he doesn’t belong in the world as he is literally a figment of the narrator’s imagination and rejects the world in which the narrator lives. Another reason for Tyler to have these colors is that he is a catalyst for all the turning points in the film which reveal to the narrator how controlled his life really is through the material goods that he has brought.

“David Fincher movies want to get at the heart of what makes reality tick. How human and environmental forces compliment and antagonize one another.” (Vasiliauskas)

Light

The majority of the film takes place in the dark, which of course adds to the grim mood of the film but it also helps to communicate the secrecy of what is going on in the Narrator’s mind “The lighting shows the audience that film is a story of a man fighting his inner demons and problems including his own expectations of himself” (Xhaed123) the dark lighting makes some of the visual information unclear both to us the audience but also to the narrator. In Contrast to the dark lighting the only scenes that are not shot during a night scene nor a dimly light room all highlight the docility and complacency in reality.

They also use lighting to show the mental state of the Narrator and Tyler Durden swapping mainly between heavy contrasted high-key lighting and very even low-key lighting to communicate which of the narrators’ personalities is most in control at any given time.

“The stark contrast between the lighting depending on whose personality is in control is obvious throughout the film. Blood, fighting, dirt, sweat, masculinity and the dark low-key lighting represent Tyler, whilst Jack is represented through consumerism, clean white oxfords, neat and tidy spaces, and the bright high-key lighting.” (Lea Studebaker)

The semiotics of the lighting is essential for the two characters because it helps us differentiate the two as well as their role in the film at any given moment.

“If the stark contrast in lighting was not utilized, the dramatic difference between Tyler and Jack’s personalities would not have been as evident” (Studebaker, 2019)

Shape Language

“People may not always notice what figures and shapes surround them still they have a great impact on our consciousness and behavior.” (Alina Arkhipova)

Shape language plays an important role in this movie as the order vs chaos theme is used continually to further the consumerist and cult danger motifs throughout the story. This is done by contrasting the clean, clinical organized scenes of the Narrator’s workplace and the various support groups that he attends to the disorganized chaos of the basements in which the club fights as well as the cult cells in which he stays after his own house as be reduced to ash. This can be broken down a step further by contrasting the hard-edged geometric shapes and the softer organics ones. The hard-edged shapes are the prevailing shapes throughout the film all a metaphor for the lack of feeling and emotion these shapes signify order, structure peacefulness in a video by Claudio Graciolli he explains that these shapes could also be seen to embody conformity and even docility, in Fight Club they are often used in places where the Narrator feels trapped and hemmed in. This is contrasted by softer organic shapes generally signify more caring and less dangerous emotions. The Narrator looks for acceptance in characters and environments with these shapes in the movie no matter how universally un-appealing they are, a perfect example of this is the scene where he has to hug a chronically obese sweaty man, which is something that is seen as unhealthy and even repulsive yet it brings the Narrator comfort as it is in direct opposition to the uncaring hardness in the rest of his life and it allows him to drop his emotional defenses and release his pent up emotions.

When the big sweaty man, Bob is soon replaced by the writhing mass of fight club members whose smooth-flowing organic shape reads quite a bit differently, it becomes something primal and it becomes the extreme opposite of the sterile world which he is trying to escape. The narrator swaps a comfortable lie for the truth in an attempt to gain some closure in his own life.

Compositional Techniques

Figure A, (Fight Club, 1999, 00:04:31)

If we take figure A as an example, in the top frame we have the Narrator visually literally boxed in by hard geometric shapes and a leading line with his boss in the foreground blocking his only exit out. This is symbolic of how the narrator feels impotent in his current life with no means of escape. All the lines lead to his eyes which are cast up in a subservient manner to the giant foreground figure. The colors are sterile which adds to the narrator’s impotence. The set dressing has no personalization which shows a complete lack of interest in his work as well as adds to his docile subservient demeanor. In this scene, we can again the Starbucks coffee which is a reoccurring prop throughout the film.

Figure B (Fight Club, 1999, 00:45:25)

In figure B we have a wide-angle shot of a fight scene within the actual fight club. Here the combatant are framed within a writhing mass of people making them the clear focal point of what is going on within this scene. There is a strong triangular composition from by the spreading of the light and the leading lines are less literal and rely more on the line of sight from the spectators of the club. The dim lighting with harsh rim light really adds to the testosterone-fueled aggression of this scene and helps indicated the regression of the people here by showing them in a primal light. The color scheme of this shot is again typical of the fight club color styling using sickly darker colors to emphasize the grunginess of the scenario, there are some spot colors that are in the shot like the bright whites and the orange-red of Tyler’s pants which serve as a focal point, guiding the viewer’s eye back to the main fight in the center of the shot, the colors also serve to show the mental state of the room mainly being an unhealthy one as the colors are all sickly greys, blues and greens while you also have the aggressive orange-red spot colors too.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is the overwhelming disillusioned world that breaks the narrator in the end, he tries to change the American dream by breaking down the hold of the material gain dogma that larger corporations have imposed on modern society. Through the muted, sickly colors, the harsh lighting schemes and the claustrophobic scenes, David Fincher and Alex McDowell have created compelling visual destruction of the main character through both his environment and his script. While it could be argued that in the end, he is reborn from the ashes of the destruction around him and that he has merged with his ulterior personality it is far more believable and compelling that the damage done was lasting and possible even irreversible, while the narrator was able to reject the consumerist lifestyle the same is not true for the rest of the world in the film, and the crimes that he had committed would leave emotional and spiritual scaring. In the end, the Narrator was not able to fully cleanse himself or the world of the consumerist American Dream.

Reference

Websites

1. Arhipova, A. (2019). Knock Design into Shape. Psychology of Shapes. [online] Tubik Studio. Available at: https://tubikstudio.com/knock-design-into-shape-psychology-of-shapes/ [Accessed 2 Mar. 2019].
2. Barrance, T. (2019). Telling Your Story: Film Language for Beginner Filmmakers – Learn about the film. [online] Learn about the film. Available at: https://learnaboutfilm.com/film-language/ [Accessed 24 Feb. 2019].
3. Bradley, S. (2019). The Meaning Of Shapes: Developing Visual Grammar – Vanseo Design. [online] Vanseo Design. Available at: https://vanseodesign.com/web-design/visual-grammar-shapes/ [Accessed 2 Mar. 2019].
4. Christoffersen, N. (2019). Fight Club: A Commentary on the Crises of Capitalism | The Prolongation of Work. [online] Sites.williams.edu. Available at: https://sites.williams.edu/engl117s16/uncategorized/81/ [Accessed 2 Mar. 2019].
5. Pelan, T. (2019). Metropolis » David Fincher 1999 Film Comment Interview on Fight Club. [online] Cinetropolis.net. Available at: http://cinetropolis.net/david-fincher-1999-film-comment-interview-on-fight-club/ [Accessed 2 Mar. 2019].
6. Studebaker, L. (2019). Fight Club: Mise en scène – Lighting. [online] Leastudebaker.wordpress.com. Available at: https://leastudebaker.wordpress.com/2015/03/13/fight-club-mise-en-scene-lighting/ [Accessed 2 Mar. 2019].
7. Theriault, M. (2019). Consumerism In Fight Club. [online] The Odyssey Online. Available at: https://www.theodysseyonline.com/consumerism-in-fight-club [Accessed 27 Feb. 2019].
8. Uvm.edu. (2019). Definitions of Semiotic Terms. [online] Available at: https://www.uvm.edu/~tstreete/semiotics_and_ads/terminology.html [Accessed 2 Mar. 2019].
9. Vasiliauskas, M. (2019). Mastering the Movie Color Palette: How David Fincher Uses Color in Film. [online] StudioBinder. Available at: https://www.studiobinder.com/blog/movie-color-palette-david-fincher/ [Accessed 3 Mar. 2019].
10. Wohl, M. (2019). THE LANGUAGE OF FILM. [online] Kenstone.net. Available at: http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage/language_of_film.html [Accessed 24 Feb. 2019].
11. xhaed123 (2019). Lighting in fight club. [online] Slideshare.net. Available at: https://www.slideshare.net/xhaed123/lighting-in-fight-club [Accessed 2 Mar. 2019].

Books

1. Bellantoni, P. (2005). If it’s purple, someone’s gonna die. Amsterdam: Focal Press. Block, B. (n.d.). The visual story.
2. Wollen, P. (1970). Signs and meaning in the cinema … 2nd ed. London: Thames and Hudson [for] British Film Institute.

Consumerism in American Contemporary Art

‘What is the function of art?’ is an age-old question we must consider before attempting to understand any subgenre or political context present in the artistic world, with the next step being to share the answers to the function’s determination. The genres in the arts are dictated mainly by the achieved style, technique or social message communicated by the work, with the popularity of contemporary art being specifically its diverse parley and lack of restraint. Hence, what is the role of art? According to Tarrant College, we know that art is the barometer that measures levels of cultural sophistication (Fernandez, 2021). Considering what we’ve come to know and analyze out of the artistic world, we know that art serves as a means of communication, or even a visual language so to say. It uses non-verbal communications to display strong feelings and can function as critiques to ongoing discourse in our realities. During the second half of the 20th century, up until now, contemporary art has taken upon itself to unravel itself in social critiques towards present issues, predominantly those such as consumerism. Further on, we’ll understand why contemporary critiques on consumerism hold great accuracy and social relevance, through the use of example artists such as Jasper Johns, Roy Lichtenstein, Andy Warhol and Jeff Koons, as well as particular concepts that have influenced the idea of social critique in art such as Marcel Duchamp’s readymades and the idea of anti-art.

Art is packaged in the form of visual and auditory techniques as a means to criticize a social reality, such as consumerism, classism or racism, because of its communicative nature, which is expressed through the use of visual language, an idea extracted from the works of Terry Barrett in 1994, specifically in ‘Criticizing Art: Understanding the Contemporary’.

It isn’t uncommon to see particular works of art, especially when we concentrate on contemporary artists, with a direct and striking message that critiques one or multiple social issues that are present today. During the beginning of the second half of the 20th century, after the end of World War II, when social issues where evermore present, artists began creating art that critiqued the actions of the government, the war itself, or any other of the multiple socioeconomic inequalities occurring at the time, with their artwork being seen as an almost form of rebellion and causing great levels of controversy due to its possible direct and crass nature. These artworks did not focus on the idea of creating art to make something beautiful, they were created with the sole purpose of acting as a movement and expression against political agendas and civil challenges, with this being one of the essential characteristics for the base of the anti-art concept.

One of the most present and critiqued societal phenomena of the time was the rise of American consumerism. Consumerism is defined as “the buying and using of goods and services; the belief that it is good for a society or an individual person to buy and use a large quantity of goods and services” (Oxford Dictionary, 2022), with American consumerism being the specific use of consumerist ideologies in American culture and society (PBS, 2020). The latter would become a topic which would come to be almost condemned by most contemporary artists. To begin to understand the idea of consumerism, we must first understand what it means to live in a consumerist society, to cite Erik Olin Wright’s ‘American Society: How It Really Works’, we understand that “A consumerist society is one in which people devote a great deal of time, energy, resources and thought to ‘consuming’. The general view of life in a consumerist society is consumption is good, and more consumption is even better” (Wright, Chapter 7, 2009). During the 1950’s, we began to see a much consumerist view of advertising and visual publications in general, with a popularization of the idea that buying more equaled living better and the rise of the idea known as the American nuclear family, giving birth to what would become basically the shopping addiction of America and one of the greatest examples of nation-wide consumerism in the world.

Furthermore, one of the first artists to not only use the technique commonly known as Pop Art, but to also use it in a way that critiqued the 1950’s American society and it’s growing consumerist values was Georgia-born artists Jasper Johns, whose use of Pop Art and Neo-Dada began to pave the way for more socially-outspoken artists such as Warhol, Koons and Banksy, defined as such by the public in instances such as the Kelowna Art Galleries’ exposition focused on the sociopolitical movement surrounding contemporary pop artists. By definition, Pop Art is “an art movement that emerged in the 1950s and flourished in the 1960s in America and Britain, drawing inspiration from sources in popular and commercial culture” (Tate Glossary: pg. Art and Artists). In the realm of Pop Art and social critique, Johns created artwork such as his famous ‘Beer Cans’, or better known as ‘Ale Cans’, a print of two beer cans which in the words of Johns, demonstrated how through the use of visual arts, even he, an artist with no marketing background alongside his infamous art dealer, could sell even the two simplest of Ale cans, as stated by the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

The inspiration for this piece nonetheless came from artist Marcel Duchamp and his idea of the readymade, which as defined by Museum of Modern Art, are “mass-produced, commercially available, often utilitarian objects, designated as art” (MoMA Worksheet, Page 1, 2018). The readymade would come to be a vital idea in the topic of critiques on consumerism, present in most contemporary works which held critiques on the latter, the readymade became a symbol of critique towards the overwhelming and vigorous consumerist culture which plays by the rules of capitalist economies, it’s use of traditional objects of cotidianity draws attention to the overall lackluster and mundane idea of capitalism in general through transforming these objects into extraordinary pieces of impactful art. In ‘Beer Cans’, we further understand the idea of a readymade by Johns’ use of mass-produced ale cans as a symbol of consumerist culture.

Moreover, throughout the 20th century we began to see a rise in the use of readymades and critiques of consumerist mass-production in general. For instance, the burgeon of New York City native Roy Lichtenstein in the 1960’s. Lichtenstein, a professor at Rutgers University with a background in the visual arts began his interest for Proto-Pop imagery in 1961, Proto-Pop being essentially Pop Art with a focus on the use of readymades (Piper, ‘The Illustrated History of Art’, p.486-487). Consequently, in 1964, Lichtenstein would begin his Pop Art works with an inspiration in advertising imagery suggesting consumerism and the typical American home-life. Lichtenstein’s work in general, as not to specify on one specific piece rather on the entire subject-matter of his life work, is essentially a subversion or critique of the already existing commerciality in art-styles in America, as seen by his use of lesser-known styles at the moment, such as comic-art, in modifications of famous advertisements. Even though Roy Lichtenstein’s work was immensely critiqued at the moment for being ‘empty’ or essentially ‘meaningless’ (Benthall, ‘The Cambridge Quarterly’, p.107-114), we can see how his embrace of unpopular art styles in satirical changes towards critically-acclaimed pieces of advertisement form an extremely meaningful critique on the consumerist and populist culture of the 1960’s, where traditional art styles were glorified and utilized in promoting consumerist practices such as mass advertisement.

Without a doubt, discussing commentary on consumerist values through contemporary art would be unreservedly incomplete without a focus on who would come to be popularly known as one of, if not, the father of Proto-Pop, Andy Warhol.

At its core, as mentioned previously in this text, we recognize Pop Art as the movement in which objects found in general cotidianity are transformed into artworks that critique a subject larger than itself. Andy Warhol went on to create in this dimension multiple pieces of art which, though not all purposely meaningful, draw attention to the rising consumption habits in 1960’s capitalist America. Specifically, Warhol’s renown piece, ‘Campbell’s Soup Cans’, was not meant to out-right criticize consumerist values in the ongoing capitalist environment of the country, nonetheless it achieved a radical checkpoint in history for what would become social criticism through art.

The emergence of massive consumption in the midst of the 20th century saw mass production and consumption become the norm in America, with elements of this trend being present in most of Warhol’s repertoire overall, but also making his work and life in general an example of consumerist values themselves, with his work rising in value and becoming mass-produced through the upcoming years. Even though the soup can piece itself was deemed too-uniform, their representation of the status of consumption of the world embodies a uniqueness in Warhol’s subconscious move to call attention to mass culture and production, depicting a world in which mass consumption is glorified and calling towards the soulless and empty secular existence of mass-capitalism.

Lastly, to further explain examples of contemporary artistic analysis and criticism of mass commercialism, we take into account the example the work of Jeff Koons, another artist whose subject matter depicted views of consumerist America and who’s work also became mass-consumed itself, much like Warhol. Although, contrary to Warhol, Koons took it upon himself to publicly define his art as blatantly anti-consumerist.

Koons began his interest in art at a young age, idolizing icons such as Salvador Dalí as a teenager, going on to study painting in Maryland as well as the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. He began his career as an artist in 1977, nevertheless his work relating to the mentioned subject matter did not begin until 1979. His earlier works, denominated ‘The Pre-New’, ‘The New’, and ‘Equilibrium’ used the concept of readymades in a more-abstract manner, with the use of strange configurations and montaging fixtures. It wasn’t until his Luxury and Degradation series in 1986 where Koons really exploited his anti-consumerist views. In this series, consisting mostly around a compilation of works centered around alcohol, more specifically advertisements thematically focused on alcoholic beverages. Koons repurposed these advertisements by recreating them as works of art which “deliver a critique of traditional advertising that supports Baudrillard’s censorious view of the obscene promiscuity of consumer signs” (Gibbons, ‘Art and Advertising’, p.150). In other words, Koons states the series as “the danger of chasing luxury. Everything was made of stainless steel, an artificial luxury, a proletarian material. I could have melted it and turned it into pots and pans” (Koons, Interview with Der Standard). Through this specific series, we understand that Koons’ critiques go further than focusing only on the rise of general consumerist America in the 20th century, which was the main protagonist in the works by Warhol, Lichtenstein and Johns, Koons turned his focus towards the specific matter of mass consumption surrounding luxury. Critiquing the superficiality of luxury goods, he goes on to depict the dangers of materialism and over-consumption of products marketed towards a ‘wealthy audience’. In an interview with daily publication Der Standard, Koons states: “I tried to show people that they should learn to preserve their political and economic power rather than strive for luxury”.

Lastly, after carefully analyzing the subject matters and specific examples regarding critiques on a consumerist America through the works of contemporary artists such as Jasper Johns, Roy Lichtenstein, Andy Warhol and Jeff Koons, we can understand the negative impact posed by the rise of over-consumption and mass production in the 20th century, and even though these works date back to an earlier time, their impact still poses significant relevance in our current time. The consumerist values that came to be after the end of World War II and the introduction of the concept of the American Nuclear Family continue to be present, and even more than ever, in an era where consumption rules above all. After observing and understanding the different critiques presented by these contemporary works of art, we come to appreciate the timelessness that socially meaningful art has on American society, and even though time has passed, values have yet to change and these subject matters have become even more relevant, even after years of their original debut.

Buy Nothing Day: Argumentative Essay

Introduction

In our consumer-driven society, Buy Nothing Day has emerged as a powerful movement challenging the relentless pursuit of material possessions. This argumentative essay explores the concept of Buy Nothing Day, a day dedicated to refraining from making any purchases, and argues that it offers a compelling solution to the detrimental effects of consumerism on our environment, personal well-being, and societal values. By critically examining the impacts of consumerism and presenting the benefits of embracing a day of non-consumption, we will advocate for the adoption and promotion of Buy Nothing Day as a step towards a more sustainable and fulfilling future.

Consumerism and Its Consequences

Consumerism, fueled by advertising and societal pressures, has become deeply ingrained in our culture. Its consequences are far-reaching and extend beyond individual behavior. The excessive consumption of goods and services places a significant strain on the environment, depleting finite resources, exacerbating climate change, and contributing to pollution and waste. Moreover, consumerism fosters a culture of materialism, where self-worth is measured by possessions rather than personal growth and well-being. This insatiable desire for more drives individuals into a cycle of perpetual discontent and financial strain, as they strive to keep up with societal expectations.

The Principles of Buy Nothing Day

Buy Nothing Day, typically observed on the day after Thanksgiving, challenges the prevailing culture of consumerism by encouraging individuals to refrain from making any purchases for a 24-hour period. The underlying principles of Buy Nothing Day include raising awareness about the environmental and social impacts of consumerism, advocating for mindful consumption, and promoting alternative forms of engagement and fulfillment.

Environmental Benefits

Adopting Buy Nothing Day offers numerous environmental benefits. By curbing our consumption habits for a day, we reduce the demand for goods and the associated production, which often involves excessive resource extraction and energy consumption. This reduction in consumption leads to a decrease in waste generation, including packaging materials and discarded products. Furthermore, Buy Nothing Day encourages individuals to reflect on their purchasing decisions and embrace more sustainable practices beyond that single day. It can serve as a catalyst for long-term behavioral changes, such as conscious consumerism, minimalism, and support for eco-friendly alternatives.

Personal and Societal Advantages

Embracing Buy Nothing Day can lead to personal and societal advantages. By stepping away from the constant pursuit of material possessions, individuals can prioritize experiences, relationships, and personal growth. This shift in focus fosters gratitude, contentment, and a deeper understanding of true fulfillment. Moreover, Buy Nothing Day challenges societal norms by encouraging individuals to question the value placed on material possessions and to consider alternative measures of success and happiness. It can ignite conversations about the impact of consumerism on our lives, our communities, and the world at large.

Addressing Counterarguments

Critics of Buy Nothing Day argue that it may harm the economy by suppressing consumer spending. However, it is important to note that the objective of Buy Nothing Day is not to permanently halt economic activity but to encourage mindful consumption and foster sustainable economic models. Additionally, it is worth considering the long-term benefits of reduced resource depletion and environmental damage, which can positively impact the economy and public health.

Conclusion

Buy Nothing Day serves as a powerful reminder of the detrimental effects of consumerism and offers a path towards a more sustainable and fulfilling future. By taking a day to refrain from making purchases, we challenge the dominance of material possessions and embrace alternative measures of success and happiness. This essay has highlighted the environmental, personal, and societal benefits of Buy Nothing Day, demonstrating its potential to reshape our values, reduce our ecological footprint, and foster a more sustainable and equitable world. Let us embrace this opportunity to break free from the shackles of consumerism and pave the way for a brighter future.