American Studies. Jennifer Price’s essay “Looking for Nature at the Mall” is typical of the deconstruction-of-nature-style intellectual work being done during the 1990s. Price suggests that environmentalism, like pretty much everything else, has been captured by the ideology of consumerism. Rather than defining themselves as “green” by living like Thoreau in the woods or actively working to save the planet or whatever, people do it by buying stuff at the Nature Store, whose basic product is not nature itself but the signifiers of a green identity. “We graft meanings onto nature to make sense out of modern middle-class life,” writes Price, “and then define ourselves by what we think nature means.”
What are some of those meanings we “graft onto nature”? “Authenticity, simplicity, reality, uniqueness, purity, health, beauty,” and so on (190). (The irony of the fact that we go looking for authenticity and reality at a shopping mall, of all places, is not lost on Price.)
Anyway, the upshot is that “we approach the natural world, like everything else, instinctively as consumers” (198). Here’s this morning’s discussion prompt: Given that consumerism seems pretty deeply entrenched and is not likely to go away just because we kvetch about it, is there any way environmentalism might co-opt it? Is there any way we might save the planet as consumers?
Thursday, February 19
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
When the Berlin Wall fell in the early 90's, it was touted as an iconic event: the fall of Soviet communism and the extension of freedom and potential prosperity to a people who had long been denied those privileges. It seemed to create an atmosphere of optimism and goodwill in spite of the Gulf War crisis.
And it wasn't long before chunks of said wall were offered for sale as collectibles to consumers who wanted to "own a piece of history" and cash in on some of the emotional energy surrounding the whole event, as well as enjoy some of the novelty and imagined prestige that having a chunk of the wall would endow you with, whether the consumer had personally been there or not!
Of course these were really just chunks of concrete. But they had been invested with emotional energy, and that made them appealing. And thus saleable.
So, if people want to spend money on a commodity that makes them feel better, and that actually helps the earth in the process, could we not open an "Earth Store", where consumers could purchase tracts of land, albeit small ones (or large, depending on price) with the understanding that they would be earmarked for definite preservation? The stores could be set up with interactive maps, showing exactly what landscapes they could choose from, and they would take home some tangible signifier which they could display to let others know of their contribution to helping the earth... Maybe a ring or some other easily recognizable and displayable symbol which would be promoted to iconic status...?
And of course some rocks and earth from the site to lend authenticity to the purchase, to display and radiate positive energy into the consumer's home...?
Idk... Just an idea.
Crikey--that's a great comment, Say! It got me to wondering whether the World Trade Center wreckage ever got similarly commodified. I found this New York Magazine article indicating that the City of New York tried to prevent that from happening. The city gave out chunks of the buildings to those planning to use them in memorials, but the recipients had to sign a statement "agreeing not to profit from the piece of history." But that was four years ago. I don't know what's happened since.
Hmm, that was an interesting article! Too bad we couldn't have applied for a piece for a memorial here at ASC! Woulda been kind of cool... Not to mention slightly, well, prestigious for such a small campus...
The consumer will never save the world entirely even with environmental co-opt, because in order to produce certain products we need to use nature. For example:
to make leather goods we need hides, to make plastic products, we need sand, to make concrete buildings,walls and streets we need cement, and to make homes and furniture, we need trees and so on.
As long as we have a need as a consumer, someone will figure it out to supply it whether it is natural or not.
the consumer will never save the world entirely... By D---
Well they have many programs in action now to try to help consumerism co-opt with helping the environment. They could give a bigger tax break to those who convert their house to solar or wind power. Donate half the tax of blue jean insulation to help save the rain forest or something to that extent. The think about the consumer market is they are always demanding more, and it needs to be better than before. So if we can convince everyone that environmentalism is the next big thing that everyone will want, we may move the masses in that direction. Once convinced then appropriate a percentage of funds to fixing what we have done in the past and keep the consumer thinking we will keep being the new hot thing. So, we have eco friendly llama socks, smart cars, old blue jeans that insulate your house. Now we just need to figure out how we make the consumer think they need that more than a Playstation, or a escalade.
The environment plays a big role in advertising these days and it seems this will only increase as time goes on. The fact that the consumer might think he/she is saving the world gives great weight to the advertisement. The question is really whether the consumer is willing and able to look beyond the words of the television screen and find the real motive behind the capitalist movements of our country. Only then can the environment be left out of the equation completely, and the consumer smart enough to find other means of consumption. If the world is to be changed the culture of America must be willing to except that change with a growing strength.
consumers will never be able to be green completely. It comes down to the people creating the products. when will it become vital to be green everywhere?
emt
Post a Comment