So that's what's wrong with the Cherokees.   We're so twentieth century. 

REH

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of michael gurstein
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 2:43 AM
To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION'
Subject: [Futurework] FW: [SPAM] America the Possible: Breaking the Chains
of Consumerism

A blast from the past...

(This sounds so, well, 20th century... What would something similar written
for the 21st century sound like...

M

-----Original Message-----
From: Portside Moderator [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 2:43 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [SPAM] America the Possible: Breaking the Chains of Consumerism

America the Possible: Breaking the Chains of Consumerism 

by James Gustave Speth

Monday, September 10, 2012 by Common Dreams

Article printed from www.CommonDreams.org
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/09/10-1

The following is an excerpt from the recently published America the
Possible: Manifesto for a New Economy (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 2012). The book, written as the third volume
of Speth's award-winning American Crisis series, calls for deep,
transformative change in a dozen areas of national life, including a
reimagination of our political economy, a halt to debt-inducing consumerism,
and a host of prescriptions for our bad case of affluenza. This appears with
the kind permission of the author.

The path to a new political economy leads straight away from consumerism and
commercialism to a very different world in which getting and spending,
material possessions, and overall consumption have a decidedly circumscribed
and modest place in everyday life.

In her insightful book, A Consumers' Republic, Lizabeth Cohen documents that
American consumerism as we know it did not just happen. It is not something
in our genes or human nature, at least not wholly. Referring to the era of
postwar prosperity that lasted approximately from 1945 to 1975, she notes
that "this period of unprecedented affluence did much more than make
Americans a people of plenty. Undergirding the pursuit of plenty was an
infrastructure of policies and priorities, what I have dubbed, for
shorthand, the Consumers' Republic. In reconstructing the nation after World
War II, leaders of business, government, and labor developed a political
economy and a political culture that expected a dynamic mass consumption
economy not only to deliver prosperity, but also to fulfill American
society's loftier aspirations."

A consumer society is one in which consumerism and materialism are central
aspects of the dominant culture, where goods and services are acquired not
only to satisfy common needs but also to secure identity and meaning.
Framing this situation as a matter of consumer sovereignty--where the
customer is always right--is misleading. Consumption patterns are powerfully
shaped by forces other than preformed individual preferences--forces such as
advertising, cultural norms, social pressures, and psychological
associations.

Consumerism is not, and should not be confused with, consumption that
satisfies essential human needs.
Consumerism is the faith that meaning, identity, and significance can be
found in material, commodity consumption, which in turn requires money. But
since meaning and self-realization cannot be found there, nor basic
psychological needs so met, consumers remain unfilled and are driven ever on
to seek more possessions, which requires still more money, all of which is
well understood by marketers. Richard Layard refers to the "hedonic
treadmill" to describe the phenomenon whereby people become habituated to
their new incomes and their new toys. "When I get a new home or a new car, I
am excited at first. But then I get used to it, and my mood tends to revert
to where it was before. . . . Advertisers understand this and invite us to
'feed our addiction' with more and more spending.
However, other experiences do not pale in the same way--the time we spend
with our family and friends, and the quality and security of our job."

A consumer society is one in which the human tendency to compare ourselves
with others is grotesquely exploited. This human tendency to compare
ourselves with others has not escaped the attention of humorists.
There's the joke about the Russian peasant whose neighbor had a cow while he
did not. He had lived a good life, and so God asked how He could help. The
peasant replied, "Kill the cow!" Numerous studies confirm that happiness
levels depend inversely on one's neighbor's prosperity. People constantly
compare themselves with others, and if everyone is better off financially,
then no one is any happier. Comparative position is what counts, not
absolute income, so rising incomes can leave just as many unhappy
comparisons.

Consumerism thus has a doubly negative impact. It is the beating heart of
the growth system. Private consumption expenditures in the United States,
for example, are about 70 percent of gross domestic product, and consumer
spending is the principal driver of the economy and its expansion. When the
Financial Times observed that "the stamina of shoppers will be crucial for
global growth," the emphasis was on consumers serving the economy, not the
other way around. Second, consumerism gives rise to a host of social
pathologies. On the squirrel wheel of getting and spending, with the longest
hours on the job in the OECD, and with both parents often at work, we
Americans are neglecting the things that would truly make us better off,
including personal relationships and social contact. Ed Diener and Martin
Seligman, two leaders in the field of positive psychology, point out, "The
quality of people's social relationships is crucial to their well-being.
People need supportive, positive relationships and social belonging to
sustain well-being."

In The Loss of Happiness in Market Democracies, sociologist Robert Lane
believes Americans suffer from "a kind of famine of warm interpersonal
relations, of easy-to-reach neighbors, of encircling, inclusive memberships,
and of solidary family life. There is much evidence that for people lacking
in social support of this kind, unemployment has more serious effects,
illnesses are more deadly, disappointment with one's children is harder to
bear, bouts of depression last longer, and frustration and failed
expectations of all kinds are more traumatic."

Our families, friends, and true companionship are thus among consumerism's
principal casualties. We have channeled our desires, our insecurities, our
need to demonstrate our worth and our success, our wanting to fit in and to
stand out, increasingly into material things--into bigger homes, fancier
cars, more appliances and gadgets, and branded apparel. But in the process,
we're slighting the precious things that no market can provide. We are
hollowing out whole areas of life, of individual and social autonomy, of
community, and of nature, and, if we don't soon wake up, we will lose the
chance to return, to reclaim ourselves, our neglected society, our battered
world, because there will be nothing left to reclaim, nothing left to return
to.

Amitai Etzioni sees the excesses of consumerism also at the roots of our
current economic troubles: "The link to the economic crisis should be
obvious. A culture in which the urge to consume dominates the psychology of
citizens is a culture in which people will do most anything to acquire the
means to consume--working slavish hours, behaving rapaciously in their
business pursuits, and even bending the rules in order to maximize their
earnings. They will also buy homes beyond their means and think nothing of
running up credit-card debt. It therefore seems safe to say that consumerism
is, as much as anything else, responsible for the current economic mess."

Cohen also highlighted the ironies inherent in the faith that "a prospering
mass consumption economy could foster democracy." What actually happened was
we witnessed "a decline in the most critical form of political
participation--voting--as more commercialized political salesmanship
replaced rank-and-file mobilization through parties." She also notes, "The
Consumers' Republic's dependence on unregulated private markets wove
inequalities deep into the fabric of prosperity. . . . The deeply entrenched
convictions prevailing in the Consumers' Republic that a dynamic, private,
mass consumption marketplace could float all boats and that a growing
economy made reslicing the economic pie unnecessary predisposed Americans
against more redistributive actions."

The creation of the Consumers' Republic represented the triumph of one
vision of American life and purpose. But there has always been another
American vision, what historian David Shi calls the tradition of "plain
living and high thinking," a tradition that began with the Puritans and the
Quakers and that provides the tradition on which to build a better America
for tomorrow. This tradition that sees America as a republic of virtue has
always been in tension with the allure of unfettered purchasing, of America
as the venue nonpareil for consumer appetites indulged shamelessly and
unapologetically. In his book The Simple Life, Shi described how the concept
of the simple but good life "has remained an enduring--and elusive--ideal. .
. . Its primary attributes include a hostility toward luxury and a suspicion
of riches, a reverence for nature and a preference for rural over urban ways
of life and work, a desire for personal self-reliance through frugality and
diligence, a nostalgia for the past, a commitment to conscientious rather
than conspicuous consumption, a privileging of contemplation and creativity,
an aesthetic preference for the plain and functional, and a sense of both
religious and ecological responsibility for the just uses of the world's
resources."

If the creation of American consumerism was a project of the country's
political and economic leaders after World War II, as Cohen concludes, it
should be possible to build a counter project aimed at something better.
Overcoming our bad case of national affluenza is important if America is to
achieve a host of goals:
reducing its ecological footprint, expanding investment in public goods,
bolstering retirement security, reducing corporate power, undermining our
growth fetish, expanding civic engagement, focusing resources on vast social
and economic disparities at home and abroad, and improving the social and
psychological well-being of individuals and families.

Etzioni properly asks what should replace the worship of consumer goods and
argues that "the two most obvious candidates to fill this role are
communitarian pursuits and transcendental ones." "Communitarianism," he
writes, "refers to investing time and energy in relations with the other,
including family, friends, and members of one's community. The term also
encompasses service to the common good, such as volunteering, national
service, and politics.
Communitarian life is not centered around altruism but around mutuality, in
the sense that deeper and thicker involvement with the other is rewarding to
both the recipient and the giver. . . . Transcendental pursuits refer to
spiritual activities broadly understood, including religious, contemplative,
and artistic ones.
. . . Communitarian activities require social skills and communication
skills as well as time and personal energy--but, as a rule, minimal material
or financial outlays. The same holds for transcendental activities such as
prayer, mediation, music, art, sports, adult education, and so on."

Juliet Schor has also offered a path forward, one she calls "plenitude." It
has four key features: moderation in hours of work, self-provisioning,
environmentally aware consumption, and restoring investments in one another
and community. In sum, "work and spend less, create and connect more."

What policy agenda would help move America beyond consumerism? First, there
are attractive steps, including some described elsewhere in this book, that
would help immensely: eliminating wasteful subsidies and imposing limits on
virgin materials entering the economy and on emissions, toxics, and other
residuals discharged to the environment; requiring full-cost, honest prices,
with border tariffs to protect U.S.
producers and workers from unfair foreign competition from countries not
fully internalizing costs; imposing a surtax on high-end consumption
spending along with various luxury taxes; promoting new for-benefit
corporations and corporate transformation generally; providing high-quality
public services, infrastructure, and amenities; moving to much greater
social and economic equality and security; conducting educational and social
marketing campaigns that not only provide accurate information to consumers
but also address deeper issues such as the shortcomings of consumerism;
promoting sharing, renting, and collaborative consumption instead of owning
("do more, own less, rent the rest"); attacking waste and throwaway,
made-to-break culture by requiring producers to take back products at the
end of their useful lives and to design products for durability, easy
repair, and even instructive conversation; imposing tight regulation on
"easy credit," predatory lending; and promoting initiatives to shift
cultural norms that promote consumerism.

Two additional steps are essential. First, we need to put in place a set of
new policies that will eliminate overwork and lead to a shorter work-year.
Just as America legislated a forty-hour workweek, we can also legislate a
thirty- to thirty-two-hour (or four-day) workweek. A take-back-your-time
package of initiatives should also include measures to protect part-time
workers and favor work sharing; guarantee longer, paid vacations; restrict
the use of overtime; and provide for generous parental and caregiving
leaves, worker sabbaticals, graduated retirement, and the option of early
retirement. Allied with these measures should be support needed for
non-income-generating "leisure"
activities (continuing education, hobbies, recreation, family and community
activities, politics, volunteering, music, the arts, reading,
self-improvement, and so on).

Second, we must put advertising in its place, which should be a small place.
Advertising is one of the world's most pernicious businesses. In the United
States, advertising expenditures grew from $60 billion a year in 1960 to
$260 billion in 2004 (in 2003 dollars), or about half of total world
spending on advertising that year. In 1983, at the behest of the Reagan
administration, the Federal Communications Commission deregulated
advertising to children on television. One year later, the ten best-selling
toys all had ties to television programs. Between 1983 and 2011, marketing
aimed at children swelled from a $100 million-a-year endeavor to a $17
billion-a-year juggernaut. The average child in the United States today sees
twenty thousand commercials annually.
Meanwhile, ads have invaded air travel, movie theaters, video games, comic
books, postseason bowl games, public schools, universities, clothing, and
popular songs. And that's not all: "Wizmark's 'Interactive Urinal
Communicator' plays 10-second promotional messages to the 'ever elusive
targeted male audience you are constantly aiming for.'" The Internet is the
largest segment, but "out-of-home" advertising now exceeds radio, newspaper,
and magazine advertising combined.
Finally, there is the advent reported in the April 23, 2011, issue of The
Economist of "gladvertising" and "sadvertising:" "a rather sinister-sounding
idea in which billboards with embedded cameras, linked to face-tracking
software, detect the mood of each consumer who passes by, and change the
advertising on display to suit it."

These folks show us no mercy, and we should return the favor. A good start
would be a ban on advertising to children in grade school, as is now done in
some Nordic countries and Quebec. We should also severely restrict
out-of-home advertising, especially in schools. Vermont has made a strong
start with its ban on highway billboards. It should be unlawful to circulate
mail-order catalogues except on request. To ensure greater truthfulness and
relevancy in advertising, a committee of the corporation's directors should
be required to attest to the accuracy and relevance of all claims in major
ad campaigns, and accuracy and relevance should be closely policed by the
appropriate federal agencies, with fines levied when appropriate.
Television and radio should be required to make time available so that the
public can challenge advertising pitches and commercialism generally, much
as Adbusters and others now do. Finally, advertising costs should be
disallowed as a business expense for tax purposes.

There is no magic bullet with which to slay consumerism, but measures like
these will carry us a good distance toward that goal.

James Gustave Speth is a professor at Vermont Law School and a Distinguished
Senior Fellow at Demos, a nonpartisan public policy research and advocacy
organization. His most recent book is, America the
Possible: Manifesto for a New Economy. A former dean of the Yale School of
Forestry & Environmental Studies, he also co-founded the Natural Resources
Defense Council, was founder and president of the World Resources Institute,
and served as administrator of the United Nations Development Programme. His
previous books
include: The Bridge at the Edge of the World:
Capitalism, the Environment, and Crossing from Crisis to Sustainability and
Red Sky at Morning: America and the Crisis of the Global Environment. 

___________________________________________

Portside aims to provide material of interest to people on the left that
will help them to interpret the world and to change it.

Submit via email: [email protected]

Submit via the Web: http://portside.org/submittous3

Frequently asked questions: http://portside.org/faq

Sub/Unsub: http://portside.org/subscribe-and-unsubscribe

Search Portside archives: http://portside.org/archive

Contribute to Portside: https://portside.org/donate


!DSPAM:2676,504e977c25489820422402!

_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

Reply via email to