Juliet Schor’s article The New Politics of Consumption: Why Americans Want So Much More Than They Need, discusses contemporary American consumerism and its afflictions or immoralities. New consumerism is defined as the upscale version of a normal lifestyle, caused by the widespread desire to obtain luxury products and the struggle to attain them, and the large (and growing) gap between consumer wants versus adequate incomes to obtain such wants (185). This is the idea that spending is used as a tool in the competition to “keep up” with what is popular and desirable at the time, this aspiration having long been a part of American culture. “This new consumerism with its growing aspirational gap, has begun to jeopardize the quality of American life” (186). Thanks to the extreme pressures of “keeping up”, families move into neighborhoods with high housing costs (so their children can go to “good” schools) in their pursuit of the American dream. The tradeoff requires that two adults work to earn dual income so they maintain their middle class status, not to mention all sorts of other expenses (car payments, wardrobe costs). In addition, this busy lifestyle requires timesaving expensive commodities (take-out food, cleaning services).
Schor’s example of new consumerism relates to the movie No Impact Man. Colin Beavan is a New Yorker who decides to change his personal impact on the Earth, leaving no carbon footprint for one year. In order to do this he pursues a number of different approaches. Beavan purchases only local foods, becomes a vegetarian, turns off his electricity, uses only green methods of transportation (walking or biking), resists all material consumption (either uses what he already has or buys second hand) and creates little to no garbage. While this film is meant to portray an ecologically friendly experiment, it in turn depicts just how consumed we as Americans are. The strong message reflected is that we are defined through our consumption. We work hard to the earn money to consume these unnecessary products, which are not well made therefore unsustainable and thus will keep us coming back to purchase more. The need to be the consummate consumer slowly undermines our very ability to thrive, much like the competitiveness of new consumerism.
What's interesting is that he could never have done that in most of the U.S.A...we're just too isolated from the necessities of life. In a suburb for instance, just a dozen miles or so from his home, he could NEVER have lived his "no impact" life...which means that he is STILL living somewhat parasitically on a structure that ALLOWS that kind of "transgressive" lifestyle, subsidizing it to some extent through transportation, law, etc infrastructure. And when the film becomes a film, of course, his "no impact" identity also becomes a commodity...is there any way to escape this pattern? Or are we trapped as consumers? And if we're trapped, what do we do about it????
ReplyDelete