While scrutinizing consumerism, I immediately thought the fine line between our 'wants' and our 'needs' is blurred by some influence, be it the economy, technology, greed, convenience or other factors. Upon revisiting this topic and browsing through the class's writing, I've discovered several classmates have thought similarly on this topic. Rachel writes in her blog "we’re caught in this weird push and pull between what we really need and what we think we need". She points our country’s mindset of “living to work." Living to work is paradoxical, however strangely understandable (or perhaps accepted). Instead of working to live, we're overworking as if that's our purpose in life. Why is that? Perhaps we're working so we can afford these things we want, because we're trying to buy the things we think we need. We think we need certain things so we work for it. This is illustrated perfectly in Rick's post as he asks "are we working a forty plus hour workweek toward something we need or rather something we want?" By being able to purchase something, people can say 'I worked for it' or 'I earned it'. They can even apply themselves to the old proverb 'you reap what you sow'. Even with purchasing power and a new material possession, I can't help but to ask 'is it something I need?'. In other words 'is it important?'
Denny writes in his blog "the things we think we need and the things we think we want end up in a gray zone that causes us to lose focus on the purpose of purchasing the item to begin with". Come to think of it, I sometimes find things in my room I don't remember buying. These things include a shirt, an electronic device, or a pack of pens. When discovering it, I immediately think 'when did I buy it, or what did I buy it for?'. Why would I buy something that I end up putting away somewhere? Answers I can come up with are: 1) these things weren't that important to begin with so I put them aside 2) I bought them 'unconsciously' and without putting much thought into it. Although I felt I needed those things at the time I bought them, they ended up getting lost or neglected. I still deem those items useful and will very likely end up using them one day. However, because I've practically completely forgotten about them, are they important?
Polly writes in her blog "many people, including myself are so determined and want something so bad that we consider it something we now “need”. When pulling open my desk drawer, I find a few packs of unopened pens I've purchased a few years ago. I may have justified to myself that I need to have writing utensils for school so I end up buying them. But if they really are so important, why is it that I never opened them? I admit I have gone overboard here in purchasing so many pens. Although I still consider writing utensils something I 'need' for college, I am still shocked I never 'found the time' to use them. I wonder if they still work. Come to think of it, pens do get lost quite often. Maybe this pen collection will come in handy one day. For now unfortunately, they're unimportant.
Another shared thought between some classmates is "consume or be consumed". Rick concludes his post wondering if that's the case, and while Truman takes a different stance on this matter he does acknowledge, "the things you own end up owning you.' -Tyler Durden". Questions that have been pondered in this class include 'Do I need this? Do I want this? Which is it? Will owning this make me happier? Can we ever satisfy our needs?' Maybe wanting something is a need in itself. Nevertheless, the next time consumers are about to make a purchase, I urge them to not only ask 'Do I need it or do I want it?' or 'Will it make me happier?' but also 'Is it important?'
2 comments:
Brace yourself for a long comment, Peter.
I am not sure that "happiness" and "importance" really add nuance to this conversation of 'wants' and 'needs'. Isn't the problem with all of these terms that they are decided entirely at an ambiguous juncture of the individual and what we sloppily call 'society'? Can any one person's 'wants', 'needs', 'happiness', or sense of 'importance' be categorically defined? I don't think so. Or, if one tried to categorically define these things, you'd end up with no more and no less than a very rigid manifestation of human existence. We need a way to articulate these problems of consumerism without deferring to simplistic terms. Your idea of 'unconscious consumption' is intriguing and worth lingering on. Are we really ready to accept that certain items or consumer venues can render allegedly rational beings 'unconscious'? The implications of this are pretty severe: this suggests that humans are not at all 'free agents' who can purchase things according to taste or style, but rather there are forces at work that can completely disable human consciousness. I am not being conspiracy minded here at all; I am merely drawing on your story of things you bought but don't remember buying. Are we ready to surrender consciousness and/or rationality? If so, we certainly cannot tout things like 'democracy', which (supposedly) require fully awake and actively thinking humans. Do you see what I mean by this?
This relates to one of the comments in your post about the Sony mobile phone/music player. One comment insists that the BlackBerry *does* make one more mobile because the person can check email "anywhere." Obviously we know that this is not entirely true. First of all, there are places on the planet that still do not get reception; thus one's mobility is limited geographically, or at least we can suppose that the BlackBerry carrier will not ‘choose’ to go to such places. For that matter, there are places that might be felt to be 'dangerous' to display a BlackBerry in plain sight; again, this places a limit on one's mobility. Of course, the other problem is that one's mobility depends on a bill being paid, and thus one's employment or being tethered to a trust fund of some sort. In other words, the illusion of pure mobility afforded by the BlackBerry is always a carefully managed (and delimited) *sense* of mobility. Mobility just means you can move around at will. Cell phone mobility means a lot more than that. My point here is that the consumer mantras of 'wants', 'needs', 'happiness', and 'importance' are *all* tactical concepts that are easily deflated from a critical perspective. It is precisely this critical perspective that consumers are *not* supposed to 'want' or 'need'.
(My quibbles aside, you have done well merging many different takes on this schema of consumerist logic.)
Post a Comment