I've been deriding the American accumulation of stuff and am having interesting discussions on Facebook about the posts. There's a sense that our economy just works like this and we have to go along with it because no individual can change things. Well, here's my theory on that:
The evils of the global economy are driven by manufacturing in poor nations (without developing the local economy, mind you) and selling the products back to us. The garment industry has been a central concern of mine. The US and Japan are the main consumers of apparel in the world. So, if our consumption habits changed, we ourselves could be a force for change in the world. The sweatshops in Asia and Central America are set up to chase our dollars. If we become aware of what our participation in this system is actually doing, we will surely want to create change. I'm thinking that if I want to write a persuasive text, I should address the cost to us of allowing the US apparel industry to continue with its outsourcing practices. I list below the various points I am hitting as I write my manuscript. I'd like everyone's feedback on which of these is most compelling. And, by all means, please tell we which combinations of these you would find most interesting as a reader:
1. Our clothing is now cheap in both senses of the word. We Americans look like neglected children. This was not the case in the past and it is not the case in countries where garments are made in legitimate local businesses. We have lost a sense of personal dignity in our appearance and seem to only be clothing our nakedness, not engaging in the pleasures of self adornment. The loss of these pleasures diminishes our lives. For more about how the art and variety has been lost in the current global economy, see Teri Agains' The End of Fashion. She has some inconsistencies in her cause and effect but her information on how the business has morphed recently is fascinating.
2. US jobs lost.
3. We have a moral responsibility to know how the things we buy were produced. If we refuse to care, we are as bad as the worst sweatshop owner. Turning a blind eye makes us global bad guys. This has a very predictable disadvantage: our country is hated in many of the poorest parts of the world (and many of the not-so-poor parts too.) This is the best fuel for terrorism.
4. Ours is a very religious nation. Though that can make for some nutty behaviors, most people in the US are sincere in their faith. We are a compassionate people who are prone to great optimism about the future. A specifically Christian argument against participating in over-consumption might be listened to.
5. Over-consumption leads to depression. It's an unlikely argument, I know, but divesting our sense of pleasure from the accumulation of stuff is a solution to many of our domestic worries. We are a nation mired in personal debt. That debt comes from buying what we actually cannot afford. Without a change in attitude toward consumption we will also be depressed if we cannot buy things we want. This is the theme I began the blog with and it did get people talking. I think there's a lurking desire among us to have such a change in attitude recommended. (And it's my theory that this is why the Hoarder TV shows have taken off in popularity.) At the heart of this is what we do in stores. We have a way of thinking and behaving in stores that serves the interests of corporations, not ourselves. I would like to walk through that self-talk and examine its self-defeating nature.
4 comments:
I would say #2, hands down. Unemployment is at the forefront of our nation's consciousness right now, with both parties fiercely engaged in the debate about the best way to make more jobs, and so would cast a very wide net for your book. I also find # 1 and #5 compelling, as I think that deconstructing the illusion of happiness that stuff's supposed to bring us involves analyzing the details of what we buy and how it effects us (very excited to read more of your thoughts about all of these!).
Religion and morality have great persuasive potential too, of course, but in my own opinion, they're more emotionally charged and have the potential for more pushback, which can sometimes obstruct persuasiveness. For example, while a Christian argument can be made against participating in overconsumption, since I am not Christian it's a bit alienating and less persuasive for me as a reader. I would be (and have been!) much more compelled by your secular arguments.
I think 1 and 5, both. 2 is very compelling, but I don't think that's what your particular passions and abilities are best keyed to. In other words, you could make that argument, like the Christian one, but I think the best match of you to your material would come with approaches 1 and 5.
--Brian Cowlishaw
I Find option 5 the most interesting and unusual approach by far. Just as our overconsumption of calories is destroying our physical wellness - not to mention bankrupting us - the amassing of stuff is having a negative impact on our mental health.
Options 4 and 3 seem very related, the overconsumption and abuses that happen in some factories seem to be completely opposite of many of the views Americans support.
I see at least two problems with option number 2. First that is primarily an economics argument. Second, know this runs counter to many of your readers, but I do not believe- and several studies agree - that there is a net loss of jobs involving offshoring/outsourcing. Did garment workers lose their jobs, first when when the jobs went to the south, then again when they went overseas? Of course they did. However, that does not mean there were not other jobs to replace them. Many of those jobs were then replaced by new automotive and appliance plants, etc.
About #5--Perhaps it is depression that leads to overconsumption...which leads to depression.
Always thought-provoking content here, Bridget; I feel that I'm having a discussion with you when I read your blog. ~Ruella
Post a Comment