Keith Hudson wrote:
> Indeed -- let's look for causes. That is what I am attempting to do. What
> happens if we discover the cause to be inbuilt -- that is, a strong
> predisposition to buy consumer products (preferably the latest and
> preferably one with visibility) in order to show status?
I agree that striving for status (or rather, for _recognition_) is
"inbuilt". However, I suggest that two fundamental parameters are
determined by nurture rather than nature, i.e. can be changed:
(1) _what_ represents status ?
In your system, status is expressed by owning status goods -- the owner
shows his wealth by owning expensive goods that others can't afford.
This equates status with personal wealth in money. (Note that the
status good itself doesn't tell if the wealth was simply inherited or
earned through own achievements.)
However, status could be defined quite differently, e.g. what a person
can do for the community, or how little a person is polluting the
environment. To re-define status in these ways, would lead to an
anti-consumerist society.
Yes, the respect from others (that is, status also) counts for a lot in smaller communities and maybe this is highly evident in Switzerland. But in larger cities there are no real communities. When I lived in Coventry I was on the main voluntary council for several years (the committe that oversaw about 30 voluntary agencies and helped to get funds for them), and I gradually got to know some of their leading people very well. My impression is that their motives were far from what they seemed to be.
(2) the _urge_ for status varies
Psychological research on consumerism found that the urge to buy is
caused by a shortage of certain neurotransmitters in the buyer's brain.
In fact, excessive consumerism has been identified as a mental illness.
The levels of these neurotransmitters can be affected by dietary and
environmental factors. So, even if we can't re-define status, we
can reduce the sometimes pathological urge for status in affected
individuals.
This is strange information to me. Of course, neurotransmitters are involved in buying consumer goods -- they're always involved in the brain.
Unfortunately, corporations and their political lackeys have a
vested interest in
(1) brainwashing people into equating status with buying status goods, and
(2) maximizing the urge for status i.e. buying,
both in order to perpetuate and maximize consumerism.
I agree with this as a general statement, though I don't think many of the exploiters have worked this out consciously. One can see all this in all its nastiness during the Xmas season -- particularly the loathsome TV advertising aimed at children.
> Therefore, in any criticism of consumerism (and I agree that it's now a
> damaging symptom of modern society) unless you can find a universal cause
> then it is pointless to argue against it morally because it is unstoppable.
> If we find a cause, then we might be able to suggest alternatives.
Therefore, it _is_ stoppable by (1) re-defining status and (2) by minimizing
the urge for status as far as harmful notions of status are concerned.
Yes. What I'm saying is: Don't preach about it in a holier-than-thou style which so many social reformers affect. (I am not including you.) This is not the way, because they too are after status in saying these things. Far better would be to sell community as a consumer good. I think that will come. Perversely, the modern gated communities of America (and this country) may be, I think, an early indication of this.
Keith
Chris
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword
"igve".
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>
