Since my post earlier in the week, I’ve been contiuing to think about some of the points brought up in the Story of Stuff. Particularly around the idea of consumerism and identity.
In order to create a continuing mrket for stuff, that stuff has to be disposable. Now, that can be achieved my producing goods which break or wear out quickly, but that doesn’t account for the ingenuity of people, who my have the audacity to fix or care for such goods. So, there’s got to be another way.
Why not convince people their identity and self worth depend on what they own?
And not just how much they own, but what type of things they own. An example here, is shirts. Ever notice how you can’t find all shirt colors all the time? I’ve been looking, this year, for scoop-neck, long sleeved, brown shirt. I have one, but after many years, it’s becoming obscenely thin, so I figured I should get a new one before I get arrested for indecent exposure. I’ve looked, and looked, but despite finding many shirts in black and grey (colors that I couldn’t find last year, when I my black shirt had shrunk to a size better suited for a pre-teen) brown was nowhere to be seen.
Why? Because colors cycle. Aside from the annoyance factor–it’s brown, folks, a staple, it’s not like I’m looking for neon green–the message, of course, is that you need to dump all your staples every season and replace them. Obviously, wearing brown this year makes you hopelessly out of touch and unstylish. Black is in. But next year, when it’s brown, or taupe, or ivory, you had better dump all those black and grey shirts and get on board.
Note. It’s not your shirt that’s out of style. It’s you. It doesn’t matter if you really like a certain look or color or style–it’s you that the judgments are placed on. On less fashion oriented note, think of the Mac vs. PC commercials. I’m a Mac. I’m a PC. It’s not about the computers, it’s about the idea that if you own Mac, you’re young, cool, effortless. A PC–sorry, dude, you’re kind of loser.
None of this is exactly news, but I’ve noticed things online that make me wonder how this is coloring our debates in this country–online, or even political discourse. It’s not enough to have differing opinions. It turns into a full on character assault because we have lost the ability to separate a differing opinion from an attack on ourselves.
Say I go on a website, and I make post….say, hypothetically, a well-meaning relative gave me some skeins of inexpensive acrylic yarn for my birthday. It’s decent yarn, but I prefer natural fibers and choose not to shop at chain retailers where at all possible, and am wondering if I should say something or not. Now, someone who knits exclusively with that particular brand of acrylic reads that post. Instead of reading what it actually says–that I personally make those choices, but don’t know how much to communicate them without being rude–she reads something along the lines of Ugh, I can’t believe someone gave me this crappy yarn, anyone who buys this stuff is cheap and ignorant. So she responds with something snarky about how it must be nice to have so much money to blow on expensive yarn when people with families are struggling, which of course my mind reads and attacheds the unspoken addition of People who buy expensive yarn are wasteful and single people don’t deserve to make as much money. And so on and so forth, until it’s a flame war of epic proportions.* When the reality is, had people stopped reading what they thought the other person was saying, and started reading what was actually said, most of it could have been avoided.
So…how do we stop doing this? I don’t know. But I think it begins with the idea of prying our identities back from being so entangled with stuff. (And that includes intangible things.) Recognizing that opinions and tastes are just that–that if someone else cares about a TV show, it’s okay. It doesn’t make them shallow/bad/uncaring about everything else. It’s one facet of them. That if someone choses to make other, non-harmful** choices, that’s up to them. And it’s not an attack on us when they do that.
And we have to be willing to make these changes. I think that may be the hardest part of all.
* I chose yarn for this because it’s common flame war topic, but slightly less controversial than an example using political topic, where people tend to gloss over everything except one sentance and commence attacking. For the record, I’ve used both acrylic and natural fibers.
**Obviously, things get stickier when you talk about the things that come up around the environment. What should be self-evident, based on scientific evidence or flat out common sense–dumping toxic chemcials in the ground or water is just a dumb idea, y’all–is rejected by people. Whether it’s a panic response to a problem that seems to big to tackle, or the result of a campaign that plays on emotions to convince people of things that are actually quite bad for them, it results in people who will stubbornly insist that they are being attacked when it is pointed out that what they are doing harms not only them, but everyone else on the planet. There is a point when things do cross the line–when what you do is no longer an opinion, but something that has an adverse affect on the lives of everyone else.