Objects purchased in the West are
ephemeral. People merely make use of them, and they no longer
impose any patrimonial responsibility on the purchaser. They
are bequeathed by nobody and the owner in turn, shall bequeath
them to nobody. They do, however, exert another kind of constraint,
for they hang over the owner as debts as yet unsettled. They no
longer locate the individual in a relationship to a family or
customary group, but the owner is nevertheless brought into
relation through them with society at large and its agencies (the
economic and financial order, the fluctuations of fashion, and so
forth). They have to be paid for over and over again, month by
month, or replaced every year.
The imperatives of personalization and mass
production combined cause a proliferation of accessory features to
the detriment of strict use value. The first effect of all the
innovations and all the vagaries of fashion is to render objects
more shoddy and ephemeral. Vance Packard points to this tendency,
listing 'three different ways that products can be made
obsolescent':
-
Obsolescence of function.In this situation an existing
product becomes outmoded when a product is introduced that performs
the function better.
-
Obsolescence of quality.Here, when it is planned, a product
breaks down or wears out at a given time, usually not too
distant.
-
Obsolescence of desirability. In this situation a product
that is still sound in terms of quality or performance becomes
'worn out' in our minds because a styling or other change makes it
seem less desirable.
The first type of obsolescence - the functional
type - is certainly laudable. . . .
The last two aspects of this scheme work together
to promote accelerated replacement of an object that itself affects
the object's quality. Thus stockings may now come in all colours,
but their quality will have declined (or perhaps research and
development will have been cut back to finance an advertising
campaign).
This means that everything has changed: the
significance these objects have for the owner, the projects they
embody, their objective future, and the future of the owner.. It is
worth pondering the fact that for centuries generations of people
succeeded one another in an unchanging decor of objects which were
longer-lived than they, whereas now many generations of objects
will follow upon one another at an ever-accelerating pace during a
single human lifetime. Where once man imposed his rhythm upon
objects, now objects impose their disjointed rhythm - their
unpredictable and sudden manner of being present, of breaking down
or replacing one another without ever aging - upon human
beings. Thus the status of a whole civilization changes along with
the way in which its everyday objects make themselves present and
the way in which they are enjoyed. In a patriarchal domestic
economy founded on inheritance and stable rents, consumption could
never conceivably precede production. Work preceded its fruit as
cause precedes effect. That ascetic mode of accumulation, rooted in
forethought, in sacrifice was the foundation of a whole
civilization of thrift which enjoyed its own heroic period before
expiring in the anachronistic figure of the rentier.
The beginning of the twentieth century marked the
arrival of a new culture unprecedented in the history of human
civilization. About a hundred years ago, America arrived at a
turning point that led to the gradual but persistent metamorphosis
of the long- standing ideals and values that had reigned over
society. The beginning of the twentieth century saw the rise of
what is commonly referred to as the consumer culture.
Consumerism is the tendency of people to identify
strongly with products or services they consume, especially those
with commercial brand names and obvious status- enhancing appeal,
e.g. an expensive automobile, rich jewellery. It is a pejorative
term which most people deny, having some more specific excuse or
rationale for consumption than the idea that they are "compelled to
consume".
To those who accept the idea of consumerism,
these products are not seen as valuable in themselves, but rather
as social signals or a reducer of anxiety about belonging. The
older term "conspicuous consumption" spread to describe this in the
United States in the 1960s.
Capitalism dictated that only firms utilizing the
most efficient production processes and divisions of labour would
survive in the free marketplace. The superiority of factories to
agrarian craft in this regard forced people to abandon traditional
homesteads, production processes and ideals. The concentration of
population in America shifted increasingly from rural to urban
areas during the industrial revolution. In 1870 almost seventy
percent of the active labour force worked on farms and by 1917 the
figure had dipped to less than thirty percent. Individually
constructed crafts were drowned out of the marketplace by cheap,
mass produced factory goods. As Adam Smith foresaw in 1776 when he
wrote the 'Wealth of Nations'.
"This impossibility of making so complete and entire a
separation of all the different branches of labour employed in
agriculture, is perhaps the reason why the improvement of the
productive powers of labour in this art does not always keep pace
with their improvement in manufactures."
In essence these productive and self sustaining
Agrarian communities could not compete on the national scale with
manufactured goods. In order to survive amid the destruction of
their way of life, farm workers and their families were left with
no choice but to flee to the city where labour was in greater
demand. The move to city life affected people in more than economic
or geographic terms. Because the self was defined by one's work and
one's community in the producer culture, the traditional ideals of
diligence, craftsmanship and moderation were given no social
support and quickly dissolved in the foreignness of city life.
William Leiss contends that
"Linked intimately with craft labour, the old ways of life
could not stamp their accumulated meanings on the anonymous
products that were beginning to pour off the assembly lines. And
the highly restrictive codes of personal behaviour shaped by the
closed worlds of religious values could not survive the more subtle
blows of industrialism."
Traditional values gave no cues to people on how
to conduct themselves in their new environment nor did they clearly
define social status. Karl Marx, critical of this change in
lifestyle says in the Communist Manifesto that capitalism "has
drowned out the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervor,
chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy
water of egotistical calculation." He claims that with the swift
changes caused by rapid revolutions in production
"All fixed, fast frozen relations, with their train of
ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all
new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that
is solid melts into air, all that is holy is
profaned."
The constant changes in production and their
accompanying changes in social relations never lasted long enough
for people to adapt and create value systems to regulate them.
People were perpetually left with a void in their lives that
tradition had once filled.
Consumption quickly filled the void left by
tradition. Success and pride in ones work was replaced with the
instant and fleeting gratification of material goods. No longer was
one's work the measure of social worth and satisfaction. Instead
the amount and types of goods one owned dictated social status and
our general level of well being. TJ Lears essay "From Salvation to
Self Realization" documents this change, he says "the crucial moral
change was the beginning of a shift from a Protestant ethos of
salvation through self-denial toward a therapeutic ethos stressing
self realization in this world-an ethos characterized by an almost
obsessive concern with psychic and physical health defined in
sweeping terms." People began to feel that goods could replace the
less tangible missing parts of their lives like love, friendship or
community. Barry Lopez, sickened by the consumption ethic in
America states in a tribute to Wallace Stegner "Perhaps the saddest
aspect of this imperative to consume in the West is that we're
asked to accept a certifiable piece of rubbish: more satisfaction
is ultimately to be found in a product -- a style of trouser, a
personally tailored system of electronic communication, an exercise
regimen, a career -- than in another human being." The consumer
culture has not only disconnected us from the processes of
production, it has also disconnected us from one another. So much
that the easiest way for us to communicate and identify with each
other is through what we own and their accompanying symbols. Lopez
says "To an outsider, it might also appear that psychologically if
not actually, many of us live in isolation; and that separated from
a continuous stream of stimulation derived from our purchases we
become anxious." Consumption is like a drug that offers us only
temporary satisfaction. An increased quantity and frequency of
consumption is needed for people to achieve the same level of
gratification.
Advertising was a key culprit in the advent of
the consumer culture. It took over the role of tradition central to
the producer culture by directing people's marketplace and social
actions. The separation of the arenas of work and personal life
coupled with increased disposable income permitted people to devote
more time and money to leisure and luxury. The efficiency of
capitalism generated a surplus beyond necessity and advertising was
an attempt to unite that surplus with people's excess income. Often
this was only feasible by creating a demand for goods that people
did not necessarily need to subsist. Through fostering
overconsumption (consumption exceeding the level necessary to live
comfortably) in the populace, capitalists were able to expand
markets to products people generally had never heard of or needed.
Where previous economies had let supply dictate the level of
demand, advertising enabled the opposite be true.
The origins of mass advertising can be traced to
the origin of brand names. Manufacturers created brand names to
both distinguish their products and to avoid low price competition.
By touting the advantages of their product through advertising
manufacturers were able to create demand and brand loyalty. Early
forms of advertising primarily constituted magazine ads and
catalogues. They gave detailed and sometimes lengthy descriptions
of the workings and qualities of their products. However, many
firms realized the potential benefit of advertising and competition
became intense quickly spawning professional agencies. Many
magazines in the early twentieth century devoted almost a quarter
of their pages to ads. This required that ads be eye-catching and
creative in order to distinguish themselves to the casual magazine
reader. The first important evolution ads undertook was becoming
less copy and more visual. Through the incorporation of art and the
availability of colour in magazines, ads became exciting, diverse
and creative. Lengthy product descriptions were replaced by images
of the product in a variety of situations and uses. Not only did
the increased visualness of ads increase their distinction, it also
enabled their content to be more abstract. More abstract ads meant
that influence could be exerted over a larger market segment and
that advertisers were given a wider palette of ideas with which to
work. The deeper meanings of ads became subtler and harder to
pinpoint causing them to influence more than our marketplace
decisions.
Ads
began to change our persona.
The second
evolution of ads was their increased nonrationality.
Ads
began to tell people more about consumer benefits than product
attributes.
Ads
often claimed that products could influence other spheres of ones
life beyond reasonable scope.
William Leiss suggests that "advertising works
much as mythology does in primitive societies, providing simple,
anxiety reducing answers to the complex problems of modern life by
playing on the deep symbolic structures of the human
imagination."
Ads
became a contemporary form of magic that invoked products with
unnatural powers.
Advertising contended that simply consuming
certain goods one could win friends, find a spouse or even
transcend social status. During this evolution rational arguments
for buying a product were beginning to be replaced with either
subtle or direct persuasion. The majority of rational arguments
remaining in ads were either testimonials or outrageous
claims,often as deceptive as nonrational arguments.
Instead of informing consumers about goods, ads
sought to change the very way people felt about them. By
surrounding unfamiliar products with familiar situations, ads could
rub the emotional content of one onto another. The variety of
different persuasions this entailed, gave ads an unlimited creative
license.
Ads
could visually equate almost any variety of feelings or ideals with
products.
In the 1990's for example sex is frequently used
to sell beer and cigarettes, two of the least sexy products around.
Ironically, moral objections prevent sex from being used to
advertise condoms. Familiar emotions and situations surrounding
unfamiliar products transfer the meaning of the one onto the
other.
Ads
are able not only to direct our consumer choices, they are also
highly influential on our social and psychological
behaviour.
The constant bombardment of ads in our home, in
our entertainment and on the roads instill false representations of
well being by playing on our basic human emotions. Whether or not
advertisers intend to influence this way is not important. The fact
is that ads have been a primary agent in defining American culture
in the twentieth century. Many people feel the question we should
now be asking is:
Was the
destruction of traditional and natural human characteristics and
century old ideals worth the extra profit to our firms and the
added luxury to ourselves. Unless a revolution of ideals takes
place in the next century, our exponentially increasing population
coupled with this culture of overconsumption is going to bring
death to our race and our planet?'