Blair: Crushing Consumption
By Peter Blair, Staff Columnist
Published on Wednesday, February 8, 2012
I recently had a conversation with one of my friends about the L.L. Bean boots I was wearing. He told me how much he disliked the popularity of Bean Boots, because you could buy essentially the same boots for much cheaper at some other store. Buying something just for the brand, he held, is a waste of money.
At the time, I argued with him, but looking back on the conversation, I realized he was right. I could have bought the same kind of boots almost anywhere and for much cheaper, but I bought them at L.L. Bean because of their recognizable brand. The conversation convinced me all the more of the truth of the following statement: We are living in an economy that is coercive and destructive, and by giving into the brand mentality, we only exacerbate the problem.
I did not come to this belief quickly or easily; like most people, I am, on an emotional level, relatively comfortable with the American economy writ large. And I do not speak from any kind of moral high ground: I am as, if not more, implicated in these practices as my peers. But on an intellectual level, these problems are far too serious to be ignored. A major stage in my realization came when I read the book “Lost in Transition” by University of Notre Dame sociology professor Christian Smith. Smith conducted national surveys and interviews with “emerging adults” (18 to 23-year-olds), and much of what he found was frightening.
Throughout the book, Smith notices destructive trend after destructive trend. He found that “fewer than one in 10 emerging adults we interviewed voiced any kind of focused discontent or more intense criticism of mass consumerism.” Very few worried about the environmental and economic impact of mass consumerism, and very few worried about the limiting horizons of a life devoted mainly or solely to material prosperity. Worst of all, very few realized how pervasive a role marketing and advertising plays in determining and influencing their decisions.
In his book, immediately prior to noting that Anheuser-Busch alone spent $5 billion on marketing in 2009, Smith related the story of a class he teaches: “When I teach Introduction to Sociology, I spend two classes discussing the question, ‘Why intoxication?’ At first, most students cannot even imagine the justification for even asking the question at all. Isn’t it obvious? But when I push them, they essentially conclude something like this: ‘The entire time we were growing up, we were ‘taught’ that when you get to college you’re supposed to party, be wild, get crazy, have fun, drink a lot.’ Their answer, in short, is that we do exactly what we were told to do.” He continues, “Those scripted norms, as powerful as they are, are also facilitated and promoted by a set of powerful social institutions that benefit financially from emerging adult intoxications.”
The truth, Smith points out, is that companies spend so much money on advertising because it works. They are able to sell us things that we don’t need through branding and other image-based techniques. We are putty in the advertiser’s hands, and our passive acceptance allows them to govern the economy according to the well-known practice of “planned obsolescence,” in which products are designed to break easily or styles are designed to go out of fashion quickly. This forces people to spend money on repairs or buy more of the latest product.
As the consumeristic engine keeps chugging along, fueled by our addiction to brand name products, we only add to the human and environmental costs exacted by our acquisitive economy on a daily basis. The environmental impact of our lifestyle is well known, but the human side is perhaps less so. The recent revelation that Foxconn, the main producer of Apple products in China, has had to install nets outside their windows to stop their workers from committing suicide by free fall, is a dramatic illustration of such costs. To understand the price at which our decadence has been purchased, one need look no further than the destruction wrought upon rural communities by strip-mining energy companies.
I propose, then, that we as a Dartmouth community resist the siren call of consumerism and moderate our addiction to brand names. If our purchasing habits were governed by social conscientiousness instead of social ambition, we might begin the first steps to the restoration of economic sanity.
Great article, definitely something we need to think about. My only disagreement is with your starting point: Bean Boots. I don’t have a pair, but I’ve watched videos about their features and how they’re made with more enthusiasm than pornography; I love everything about them, and I’d get a pair if they weren’t obscenely popular on this campus. So that’s one point; don’t forget that at a certain level, popularity can become a turn-off. At least for some people. But even more specifically, LL Bean is not a company that designs things to break or go out of fashion. LL Bean is an incredible company and your boots will either last forever or get replaced for free when they don’t. I’m not saying that that policy isn’t a form of advertising, or isn’t part of a business plan, but you can’t just stop buying things because you don’t like consumerism, and if you need solid shoes, you may as well support an all-around-awesome company like LL Bean.
By ‘13 on Feb 8 | 2:45 am
People don’t buy LL Bean because they’re cool. Nobody’s ever lined up outside a mall at 7:30 the night before in the hopes of getting the newest LL Bean boots the way people do for NIke shoes. LL Bean are as popular as they are because even if similar boots are available elsewhere for cheaper, LL Bean will allow returns and exchanges at any point for any reason. They have a 100% satisfaction guaranteed policy and they actually stand behind it. There’s no waste of money in buying boots from LL Bean!
By Bwah? on Feb 8 | 8:01 am
Thank you for writing this. Needless consumption and mass consumerism are definitely issues that get overlooked at Dartmouth. I take issue, however, with your Bean Boot example on two counts. One, LL Bean takes pride in their environmental and social responsibility as an organisation – you can read about this at the “Company Values” page on their website. You might not be able to say the same about a company producing an imitation Bean Boot. Secondly, the price of the Bean Boot certainly does reflect the desirability of the brand, but the desirability of LL Bean has been built upon their producing long lasting and quality products, with a commitment to free repair or replacement. They are certainly not in the market of planned obsolescence. A cheaper imitation boot will likely fall apart faster than a Bean Boot, causing you to need to replace it, doubling not only the money you’ve spent on keeping your feet dry but also the environmental and social impacts of your purchasing. And no I don’t work for LL Bean! I’m just calling for conscious consumerism, and purchasing decisions that start with ‘Do I really need this?’ and are followed by ‘What is the impact of this product on people and the planet?’
By Morgan H. Curtis on Feb 8 | 10:40 am
This column is full of it. “We are living in a society that is coercive and destructive.” As far as the private economy is concerned, which is what Blair is wildly complaining about, there is nothing but choice. That is not only not coercive, it is liberating and constructive. So Blair is exactly wrong. The government however, who Blair fails to mention, is coercive and destructive, because it forces the “society” and everyone in it to do as it says and in doing so destroys all of the individual initiative and choice that would solve our problems in ways that are humane and suitable for each of us. So, the question is, why would someone make the false case against freedom and not make the true case against government force, real coercion and real destructiveness? the answer is that in order to obtain power, the people must be “taught” that liberty is bondage and real progress is destructive. That’s what Blair is attempting here and it is a failure. By the way, no one “taught” anyone that when they go to college they have to drink a lot and be wild and crazy. The parents who are paying for it didn’t “teach” their children to do that when they got to college. Their teachers in their previous schools didn’t “teach” them to do it and the beer companies may want you to do it, but if you don’t drink beer, they’ll sell you what you do want to drink. This column is another in a long line of attacks on liberty and capitalism. You don’t want L.L. Bean, get Sorels. It’s your problem if you think you are identified by the stuff you buy, wear and drive. I have news for you, the people who care about what you are buying are as stupid as you are.
By Anonymous on Feb 8 | 11:35 am
I would agree as a society we do place too much importance on brand. However, I do not believe the Bean Boot is a good example of this argument. Yes, you can buy similar boots for less expense. The difference is the Bean Boot can be re-soled saving waste and reducing consumerism. My father’s Bean Boots have been re-soled twice and are over 30 years old – that seems worth the price.
They are also made domestically. Buying locally produced merchandise is beneficial to the environment. Think of the environmental impacts resulting from the shipping of products produced overseas.
Finally, the Bean Boot was first introduced 100 years ago. The quality and craftsmanship of the boot has been developed over the years. There has been a recent surge in their popularity, but they should not be hated for their ability to persevere.
By P Popovic on Feb 8 | 11:37 am
Brands are not only found in the consumer products arena. I would venture that Dartmouth is most certainly a brand (as is Harvard, etc.) for which you are paying a premium over a comparable product.
Now let’s start going through your medicine chest and your kitchen cabinets. Advil or generic pain relief? Cheerios or bulk oats from the coop?
Do you drive a car? Do you live in a neighborhood? Have you ever been to Starbucks?
You are awash in brands.
Now enjoy your resistance to brand names while your parents write the tuition check.
By P Talbott on Feb 8 | 11:40 pm
Oh my goodness, it’s like half the commenters on this thread are paid advertisers for L.L. Bean.“They have a 100% satisfaction guaranteed policy and they actually stand behind it. There’s no waste of money in buying boots from LL Bean!” lulz.
By Anonymous on Feb 9 | 12:20 pm