Introduction
Americans have typically been regarded as large consumers and this has created a situation where they demand more products and services than they can possibly consume. This paper analyses the article of Schor Juliet that speaks of this rising phenomenon that has threatened the US economy.
What is the author’s central message or thesis?
The central message that Schor (2006) speaks of is the self-destructive ‘New Consumerism’ and ‘Competitive Consumption’ that forces families to spend more than they can afford on items that can be considered as luxury and not as comfortable. The American family income is coming down over the years in the net worth, but there is an overwhelming craving to maintain a social image of the society in which the family lives. With the current economic pressures that have come to the fore, the need to close the aspirational gap between the haves and the have not’s has become very urgent. This has forced the mother to take up jobs, not because the money is needed for a basic living but because the ‘New Consumerism’ demands that the family buy computers, enrol children for expensive classes, use dry cleaning services, buy a second car, indulge in stress-relieving experiences and so on.
What arguments does the author use to advance her thesis?
The author has used many arguments and facts to advance her thesis. The author speaks of the problems caused by ‘New Consumerism’ where families live in communities with high living and housing costs. Children need to be given advantages that need to be purchased on the private market such as lessons, computers, private schooling extra-curricular, etc. The pressures of having two adults working make the family buy a second car, use an expensive wardrobe, provide for childcare costs, dry cleaning, etc. The author suggests that even low-income households have not been spared from this problem. As it is, these families have irregular income, take part-time jobs, and have restrictions on welfare payment and so on. But credit card companies target many of these families, they watch more TV and are exposed to more consumerism. The author argues that this Mew Consumerism has taken out the money that can be used for another self-development purpose.
Does the author make any claims of fact in the course of her arguments?
The author has given at the end of the article a statement that “Sources for much of the data cited in this article can be found in the notes to The Overspent American: Why We Want What We Don’t Need (HarperPerennial, 1999) or by contacting the author”. We have to assume that the data she has referenced is reliable and accurate. She has mentioned an analysis of data in one of the sections “Just over 40 per cent of adults earning $50,000 to $100,000 a year, and 27 per cent of those earning more than $100,000, agree that “I cannot afford to buy everything I really need.” One third and 19 per cent, respectively, agree “I spend nearly all of my money on the basic necessities of life”. She has also provided data from other researchers and these are given in the main article itself. She also speaks of the increasing bankruptcies that are facing the nation and has suggested that there are as many as 1.5 million bankrupt people in the world.
Does the author support her arguments with references to any philosophies or beliefs?
The author has built her thesis on a few beliefs and philosophies that were published much before. She has used these theories to either suggest that they were wrong or has used them to advance her theory of New Consumerism. Some of the theories and philosophies used are ‘Elements of the New Left, influenced by the Frankfurt School, as well as by John Kenneth Galbraith’; the works of Thorstein Veblen, James Duesenberry, Fred Hirsch, and Robert Frank which have written about the importance of the relative position as a dominant spending motive. She has also used the upscale emulation theory suggested by researchers Susan Fournier and Michael Guiry.
Why does the author insist that a collective response to this problem is necessary?
The author has suggested that a collective and not individual response is needed because if a single person attempted to suggest such a thing, then the person would be called intrusive, elitist or patronizing. The author has suggested a collective response since the New Consumerism siphons off the valuable resources. She says that there is a marked shift in the way people use resources that can be for 4 reasons; public consumption, private consumption, leisure and private savings. Because of the increased spending, people tend to work more and more and this has increased the work hours till there is no time for leisure. Consumerism also has reduced the savings that people make and this has reduced funding for public education, donations for education and recreation. Competitive consumption has made people turn a blind eye to the realities of life. To counter these efforts, it becomes imperative that a collective response be given to this problem and only then the quality of life can increase.
How is the author’s argument similar to Bork’s point of view in Slouching towards Gomorrah?
There are some similarities between the work of Schor and Bork. Both speak of the evils of excessive consumerism that has pervaded our lives and both speak of restraints to be imposed. The difference lies in their perception of excessive consumerism and the ways to handle it. Bork speaks of increased graphic sexual content and content on violence that is easily available for voyeurs. He suggests that the First Amendment that gives the right of free speech and expression is intrinsically erred and the judicial system did not see the many ways in which this freedom would be subverted. Bork suggests that censorship should be brought back into practice since brutal and violent sex is increasingly being depicted on TV and in movies. He has argued that the constant show and endorsement of violence has triggered an increase in crime. Bork has quoted statistics of how violence on TV has increased homicide rates. According to the author, the homicide rates in the US, Canada and South Africa have increased dramatically in the 10-15 years since the introduction of television. The study reported that television violence is a causal factor in about half of the 21000 homicides per year in the US and half of all rapes and assaults. Bork contends that it is increased consumerism that has made many people take to violence so that their needs for products and other desires can be met.
Can you identify any defects in the author’s argument?
The author has generalized many of the arguments and shown that New Consumerism has become a national problem. She has mentioned that the problem does exist in cities but has not made any observations if this pattern is also reported in rural and semi-urban areas where the majority of the US population lives. It is apparent that the thesis is confined to certain sections of people who live in cities. The study puts an overemphasis on the buying of consumer goods but that is growing and what technology demands. The increased spending on computer lessons for the children is required to equip them for the modern world. Child care centres have become a necessity as more women take up jobs. Mothers taking up jobs is not something bad but it her innate choice to achieve financial freedom.
Do you find the author’s arguments persuasive?
The author’s arguments are indeed very persuasive and compelling. What she has said is very true for certain sections of the population and we have to generally think about reducing excessive spending, increasing saving and increasing the quality of our lives to make it less hectic and stressful.
References
- Bork Robert H, ‘Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline‘ Regan Books, Harper Collins Publishers, pp: 140-153
- Schor Juliet (2006), ‘The New Politics of Consumption: Why Americans want so much more than they need’