responsibility

[Burlingame]

Because shopping has gone from something you do when you need something to a cultural and leisure activity like reading or going to a museum. Of course you cannot engage in such an activity often if you don't have cheap shit to buy, you will simply go broke.

Interesting discussion. I think this statement is really on point. Shopping is a pastime now, a form of entertainment. For those with money I suppose it probably always was, but fast fashion makes it possible for most people these days (well, most people in developed countries at least). The point of shopping in this way isn't necessarily to purchase an item that you really want, and almost certainly don't need. The item you purchase is almost incidental. Shopping is the real point. Walk through Soho on the weekend or any mall and it's just tons of people wandering around looking for stuff to buy. But if the item doesn't really matter, then the quality doesn't much matter either. You can buy expensive, high-quality stuff if you're rich and cheap stuff if you're not, but the goal is the buying.

[stagename]

You know, there is no equivalent to the word "shopping" (as in, an activity) in Russian. And I suspect in many other languages not shaped by consumerism.

Doing a short piece on the history of fashion today and it seems that "to shop" entered in our vocabulary in the mid-eighteenth century. Thought it was an interesting snippet of info.

Interesting discussion. I think this statement is really on point. Shopping is a pastime now, a form of entertainment. [...] You can buy expensive, high-quality stuff if you're rich and cheap stuff if you're not, but the goal is the buying.

Completely agree. Interestingly enough, marketing academia recognized the "fun" side of shopping only 25ish years ago (Holbrook, Hirschman 1983). If you read some books on the first department stores, it becomes evident that those, such as Le Bon Marché, had strong experiential/hedonic/ludic elements to it at the turn of the 20th century. Miller (1994) writes about Le Bon Marché that at the beginning of the century, it had become a "permanent fair, an institution, a world of fantasy, a spectacle of extraordinary proportions: going to Le Bon Marché had become an event, an adventure". Not sure where I'm heading here, but yeah, I'd agree with Burlingame in that shopping has been dissociated from buying for a long time, shopping for the sake of shopping.

[Rosenrot]

Has anyone given a thought that shopping is a habit that is cultivated at a young age? After all, hanging out in the mall is a favourite pastime among the youths. I have a younger sister, who's sixteen and thus the perfect target for F21, H&M etc, and that's precisely what she does. She comes home almost every week with something new. Is the idea of sustainability/responsible consumption relevant to her? Not at all, she said. The only saving grace is that she sells whatever she doesn't want instead of throwing them into the bin. I was no different until I came across Lucy Siegle and Dana Thomas.

It's all good and well when people wake up from their slumber, but at the rate it's going, we'd probably end up draining our resources first. Kids are now encouraged to recycle, maybe this is another habit that has to be cultivated at a young age.

[Faust]

Completely agree. Interestingly enough, marketing academia recognized the "fun" side of shopping only 25ish years ago (Holbrook, Hirschman 1983). If you read some books on the first department stores, it becomes evident that those, such as Le Bon Marché, had strong experiential/hedonic/ludic elements to it at the turn of the 20th century. Miller (1994) writes about Le Bon Marché that at the beginning of the century, it had become a "permanent fair, an institution, a world of fantasy, a spectacle of extraordinary proportions: going to Le Bon Marché had become an event, an adventure". Not sure where I'm heading here, but yeah, I'd agree with Burlingame in that shopping has been dissociated from buying for a long time, shopping for the sake of shopping.

Even before that, actually. I suppose you are alluding to Ladie's Paradise by Emile Zola?

[Faust]

Has anyone given a thought that shopping is a habit that is cultivated at a young age? After all, hanging out in the mall is a favourite pastime among the youths. I have a younger sister, who's sixteen and thus the perfect target for F21, H&M etc, and that's precisely what she does. She comes home almost every week with something new. Is the idea of sustainability/responsible consumption relevant to her? Not at all, she said. The only saving grace is that she sells whatever she doesn't want instead of throwing them into the bin. I was no different until I came across Lucy Siegle and Dana Thomas.

It's all good and well when people wake up from their slumber, but at the rate it's going, we'd probably end up draining our resources first. Kids are now encouraged to recycle, maybe this is another habit that has to be cultivated at a young age.

I would imagine so

I don't think all teenagers are like that, but yeah... One of the problems is the way suburbs are (purposefully) structured. There aren't many places to hang out but the mall. There are books on that too (or at least academic papers).

[Rosenrot]

Of course not 100% are like that, but the mall culture is really strong in Asia. We're so used to cheap goods made next door it's not funny. Many of us grow up thinking that a pair of shoes should cost no more than $30.

[syed]

Many of us grow up thinking that a pair of shoes should cost no more than $30.

This. Take the example of milk - there has been a campaign in England this Summer by farmers to get people to buy milk from certain supermarkets only, because they actually pay the farmers the full price. But most people go to wherever is cheapest without thought of anything beyond the finished product and how much they can save (especially now that most people are on a more restricted budget).

Because the clothing people encounter most frequently is on the high street, where fast fashion reigns, their view of pricing is obviously influenced and skewed. I think the 'Honest by' clothing line is interesting because they state the full breakdown of costs and prices (including mark up). Now whilst it is expensive by virtue of it being a premium line and the materials used, I have shown it to people who were amazed at how the price actually broke down, and that then makes them think of how the price breaks down on a £2.50 t-shirt from Primark, and which people are getting shafted along the way. Obviously there is a difference in price when making 10 t-shirts, to making 10000 t-shirts, but you still have to ask where such dramatically low prices are coming from.

Most people are not even aware that there is a problem or issue that needs tackling, so until there is more attention paid to the issue, it remains a fringe concern, which is more than unfortunate.

[Fenix]

Most people are not even aware that there is a problem or issue that needs tackling, so until there is more attention paid to the issue, it remains a fringe concern, which is more than unfortunate.

The real question becomes how can we change this mentality or even better, at this point, can it be changed? I'm not so sure and I'll give you an example as to why.

So, I am a huge foodie, big into farm to plate, etc. I'm in a local store yesterday cause the family wanted chicken wings. Get to the cash and it's $36 for approximately 3 kilos of chicken wings. My instantaneous reaction is "wtf, why am I paying this much for wings".

Point is, it is engrained into our mind, at least in North America, that food/clothes and certain things should be cheap. Even to the point that, myself who consciously attempts to make the right choices when it comes to products has the above reaction.

If even I have these moments, how can we expect people in a lower income bracket who have built their quality of life around having access to cheap food and clothes to make the change? No matter how much anyone preaches to them, something dramatic will need to happen to influence the masses at this point.

[several_girls]

Most people are not even aware that there is a problem or issue that needs tackling, so until there is more attention paid to the issue, it remains a fringe concern, which is more than unfortunate.

The real question becomes how can we change this mentality or even better, at this point, can it be changed? I'm not so sure and I'll give you an example as to why.

So, I am a huge foodie, big into farm to plate, etc. I'm in a local store yesterday cause the family wanted chicken wings. Get to the cash and it's $36 for approximately 3 kilos of chicken wings. My instantaneous reaction is "wtf, why am I paying this much for wings".

I'm in agreement as far as considering the "true cost" of cheap food/goods, but to import a point I made in another thread: I think the whole organic/slow food phenomenon, as well as artisan clothes/furniture/housing, can be understood as an expression of income inequality as much as it might be a grass-roots, ethical consumer movement.

Consider, for example, the clientele that prop up shops like Atelier. I've read a few of the stories posted here of celebrity customers that walk from their private appointment with armloads of CCP. Those of us buying stuff on discount might actually constitute a less vital part of annual sales than we imagine. I'm not a store owner or manager though, I could be wrong. Similarly, who can afford to shop at Whole Foods? The quickly vanishing middle class find it burdensome, and certainly not the swelling ranks of poor.

Take as another example, I've recently heard the terms "developing nations" and "1st world countries" inverted: the US and western EU should be considered "overdeveloped" countries. So take this thinking and bring it to bear upon a concept like food deserts. We're not really seeing food deserts, this is actually just way that most people live and only wealthy people who can afford to have discussions or read journalism about food deserts perceive them as such. The wealthy think that their living standard is the norm, and when parts of cities in the US or EU look like third world countries, they are surprised to find not everyone lives the way they do.

And growing income inequality dovetails neatly with the growth of concern over things being handmade, grown or traded fairly, etc., no? I'm aware that concern has always been out there, but you must agree that's it gotten much more popular in the last 10-15 years.

[Faust]

To be sure, several_girls, there are plenty of people like you describe. But plenty of poor Americans are also stupid and irresponsible in their spending and living habits. To wit, McDonald's has no fucking business accepting food stamps. But they do. Who goes there? Not the rich. And I don't buy the argument that junk food is cheaper than vegetables. You don't have to go to Whole Foods. I live in an immigrant neighborhood in Brooklyn where I've lived for 20 years. I just passed by a vegetable store that sells avocados for 50 cents. They are $2.25 a piece at Whole Foods (non-organic).

It's time the moral self-flagellation of privileged liberals has stopped and the real work - educating the poor - resumed. I think that's your answer, Fenix*. That's been the answer for centuries. Provided you are not some vicious redneck, we all want our children to have better lives than we do. That entails education. And the educational institutions are where good ideas not only get born, but get crystallized and spread through society. It will take time, but I think it will happen. I know it's bad for capitalism, but capitalism can be beaten at their own game - witness the scrambling of big food companies to jump on the organic game. Sure, we can say it's not pure, and it isn't. But, hey, if these motherfuckers can deliver organic milk to Walmart, I will take it over no organic milk. So, our hope is for next generation.

My child is an American child. She does not know what the inside of a McDonald's look like and she has zero interest in going there and poisoning herself. Now, that's a small revolution.

*You are lucky you live in a civilized country. Our education system is so thoroughly fucked, I wouldn't even know where to begin...

[Patroklus]

Education is bad for capitalism?

[Fenix]

It's time the moral self-flagellation of privileged liberals has stopped and the real work - educating the poor - resumed. I think that's your answer, Fenix*.

This has always been the answer? I agree somewhat. The question I was trying to pose is "are we too far gone"? You say no but I'm not convinced.

For arguments sake let's say we were able to educate every middle class American down. What percentage of those people are really going to make a life change? Not only do they have to sacrifice and spend the money on the quality ingredients, thus taking $'s from another pool in their budget. They also must invest the time into preparing a solid meal. Sacrifice and no convenience? This is a true revolution!

E, don't get me wrong I'm with you but educating is only the tip of the iceberg.

[wurm]

This has always been the answer? I agree somewhat. The question I was trying to pose is "are we too far gone"? You say no but I'm not convinced.

For arguments sake let's say we were able to educate every middle class American down. What percentage of those people are really going to make a life change? Not only do they have to sacrifice and spend the money on the quality ingredients, thus taking $'s from another pool in their budget. They also must invest the time into preparing a solid meal. Sacrifice and no convenience? This is a true revolution!

E, don't get me wrong I'm with you but educating is only the tip of the iceberg.

If we educate, people will better know how to a lot their money. You can spend a hell of a lot less making your own healthy sandwich than you would at McDonald's. Also, quality food doesn't have to take a ton of time. There are simple recipes that taste good and are nutritious too .

[several_girls]

But plenty of poor Americans are also stupid and irresponsible in their spending and living habits.
...
It's time the moral self-flagellation of privileged liberals has stopped and the real work - educating the poor - resumed.

For the record, I am in agreement with you about education. I think so much would change if people knew the conditions of production.

Secondly, your point is one about agency, mine was more of a description of social structure. We are approaching the question from two different assumptions; yours attributes a high amount of responsibility and expectation of all people, mine is that people do not have so much control over their decisions--for any number of reasons (imperfect information, resources, etc).

I am not saying how things should be, or that they are bad or good, but simply "this is how it is right now." It's not that there are the rich who eat organic and the poor who don't, and one is more reprehensible than the other, I am saying that awareness of ethical consumption is contingent on the existence of this wealthier class who can afford to do so. And now we want for the poor to eat organic or grow gardens?

There is no solution, because poor people are poor and cannot afford the investment of time, money or personal energy, unless someone provisions it for them. This is what Althusser called "the last instance." People will always seek the cheapest goods. Until it is profitable to produce things with fair labor standards and so on, the market will always select for exploitation. It's like water seeking it's own level.

Finally, I disagree with you about moral self-flagellation. No matter which philosophical position I take or social station I occupy, I cannot help but self-criticize. There is a reason for the association between anxiety and intelligence, no? Especially in ethics, this is about considering the best course of action. Whether I am thinking about my choices deontically or consequentially, it takes time to figure out.

For arguments sake let's say we were able to educate every middle class American down. What percentage of those people are really going to make a life change? Not only do they have to sacrifice and spend the money on the quality ingredients, thus taking $'s from another pool in their budget. They also must invest the time into preparing a solid meal. Sacrifice and no convenience? This is a true revolution!

E, don't get me wrong I'm with you but educating is only the tip of the iceberg.

I agree, however attractive this looks implementing some system of education seems problematic. We are going to tell the poor and middle class how to spend their money? Isn't this the "civilizing mission" all over again?

How like Native Americans were brought into boarding schools, taught proper English language, social manners, dress, religion; meanwhile their parents were coaxed by the BIA into trying sustenance agriculture in the least arable lands they were left with. This is an extreme case, but you see what I am getting at. The generalization is that wealthy are imposing their values onto the poor, and it will be entirely for the humanitarian benefit to the poor! I've heard this story before.

I suppose another "solution" would be to try and unionize labor in agriculture and production in Honduras, Vietnam, Thailand and wherever else clothes are being made and fruit is being picked. Then they could bargain for fair working conditions. Unfortunately, unions in these countries are violently suppressed.

[Faust]

This has always been the answer? I agree somewhat. The question I was trying to pose is "are we too far gone"? You say no but I'm not convinced.

For arguments sake let's say we were able to educate every middle class American down. What percentage of those people are really going to make a life change? Not only do they have to sacrifice and spend the money on the quality ingredients, thus taking $'s from another pool in their budget. They also must invest the time into preparing a solid meal. Sacrifice and no convenience? This is a true revolution!

E, don't get me wrong I'm with you but educating is only the tip of the iceberg.

I think it could happen. That's how ideas that change society germinate. It would have to be with the new generation though.

Several_girls, understood. BTW, I wasn't addressing you with the self-flagellation comment. I am all for self criticism, but I am also against romanticizing the proles.