February 15, 2011: Discussion Questions: Consumption, Identity and Risk
30 views
Skip to first unread message
Emilie Dubois
Jan 28, 2011, 4:37:52 PM1/28/11
to Consumption and Sustainability
Anthony Giddens, Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the
Late Modern Age, chs. 1,3,6.
Ulrich Beck, World At Risk (Polity Press) 2007, chs. 1,2.
Late Modern Age, chs. 1,3,6.
Ulrich Beck, World At Risk (Polity Press) 2007, chs. 1,2.
Tom Laidley
Feb 21, 2011, 5:26:34 PM2/21/11
to consumption-and...@googlegroups.com
Thinking about this week's reading, I'm wondering if it wouldn't be instructive to go back to the last couple for some engagement. With time/space distanciation and disembedding, people self-reflexively engage with problems that transgress the here and now of whatever locality they find themselves in, as they likely would have done in a more traditional historical context. Connolly and Prothero use these concepts to illustrate how consumers see their choices as affecting global systems of production and provision, along with problems- like environmental issues- that are related to it. But is this a universal condition? It seems to me this more cosmopolitan, abstracted way of thinking about your place within the flows of global capital (and individual contributions to carbon emissions, energy use, etc.) does not take place among everybody equally. There's no normative subtext there- in my personal opinion, there are often very good reasons for this, so it should not be taken by anyone to resemble 'scolding.' Still, maybe this should be viewed as a potentiality rather than a universal condition of late modernity.
Though Connolly and Prothero gathered a small sample, I think the above might be well reflected by who they did get to participate. Even when the respondents presumably had low levels of economic capital, they're all educated, and living in an urban environment. While no London or New York, Dublin is a global metropolis, and educated residents within it we would expect to be 'plugged in' to geopolitics and how their lifestyles relate to it. Does this happen in more rural areas? With less educated respondents?
While the above may not be part of their project, I think it's fair to ponder. While their work didn't jump out as indicative of 'life politics' (and when it did, it was fairly obvious), I liked a couple things they did. First, they didn't dismiss the pertinence or relevance of consumer decisions and strategies. Maybe it's not the best outlet or game-changer, but it's 2011, and in many contexts, it's probably our best hope to change things (whatever you make of that, so be it). Another is how, consistent with structuration theory, they kept a keen eye to structural constraint which precludes social agents from radically transforming their lifestyles in a way that's congruent with their environmental values.
I also liked how they included the point about organic food being more a personal health concern than an environmental one; this doesn't do wonders for supporting their theory, but 1) it shows how complex these reasoning processes can be and 2) that self interest and abstracted political goals can be connected, and this may be a good strategy for engendering action (though in practice I think this usually devolves into making people act by way of fear, which again, I find both pragmatically and normatively problematic).
Though Connolly and Prothero gathered a small sample, I think the above might be well reflected by who they did get to participate. Even when the respondents presumably had low levels of economic capital, they're all educated, and living in an urban environment. While no London or New York, Dublin is a global metropolis, and educated residents within it we would expect to be 'plugged in' to geopolitics and how their lifestyles relate to it. Does this happen in more rural areas? With less educated respondents?
While the above may not be part of their project, I think it's fair to ponder. While their work didn't jump out as indicative of 'life politics' (and when it did, it was fairly obvious), I liked a couple things they did. First, they didn't dismiss the pertinence or relevance of consumer decisions and strategies. Maybe it's not the best outlet or game-changer, but it's 2011, and in many contexts, it's probably our best hope to change things (whatever you make of that, so be it). Another is how, consistent with structuration theory, they kept a keen eye to structural constraint which precludes social agents from radically transforming their lifestyles in a way that's congruent with their environmental values.
I also liked how they included the point about organic food being more a personal health concern than an environmental one; this doesn't do wonders for supporting their theory, but 1) it shows how complex these reasoning processes can be and 2) that self interest and abstracted political goals can be connected, and this may be a good strategy for engendering action (though in practice I think this usually devolves into making people act by way of fear, which again, I find both pragmatically and normatively problematic).
Gerone Lockhart
Feb 21, 2011, 5:33:04 PM2/21/11
to Consumption and Sustainability
I find Beck's framing of global risk curious. He writes, "...Modern
society is ailing not from its defeats but from its triumphs" (Beck,
World at Risk, 22). That's not quite right. More accurately, modern
society is ailing from fundamental failures (i.e., defeats)--a
blindness to the social consequences of (social constructed)
"triumphs" which perhaps ought not to be considered triumphs at all
considering that they produce new risks that are possibly equal to
their triumph. Perhaps another way of articulating Beck's insight is
to say that modern society is ailing from fundamental flaws in its
value structure that is unable to align its notions of progress and
triumph with responsibility for its consequences. Thus, a better
title might be "Juvenile World at Risk."
I would also like to take issue with how Beck frames his comparison of
environmental, economic and terrorist threats. I agree that there is
a difference between environmental and economic dangers, on the one
hand, and terrorism on the other. However, I do not think that the
distinction turns on either the presence of "goods and bads" or
"purpose."
In World at Risk, Beck argues: "An essential difference between
environmental and economic dangers, on the one hand, and the terrorist
threat, on the other, resides in the fact that in the latter case
purpose takes the place of chance. Environmental crises and economic
threats due to global financial flows, in spite of all their
differences, exhibit a commonality: they must be understood in terms
of the dialectic of goods and bads, and hence as contingent side
effects of decisions in the process of modernization. This is not
true of the new terrorism, which annuls the rational principles of
former risk calculations because purpose replaces chance and
maliciousness replaces good will." (Beck, World at Risk, 13-14)
Here, Beck omits two significant points. On terrorism, Beck omits the
fact that terrorism occurs within a global network of violence, where
the relationships between the terrorist and the terrorized and the
origins of their conflicts are far from simple. Second, on the role
of purpose and chance, it is difficult for me to construe
economic and environmental threats as chance and not purposeful...at
least in part. As Beck admits, the threats that he is discussing are
generated by human conduct. Moreover, given historical accounts of
the abuse of power and global movements against environmental
degradation and laissez-faire capitalism, it is hard to argue that
contemporary contributions to environmental and economic threats is
not purposeful, at least in the sense of being aware of the
probability of creating threat and an unwillingness to aggressively
look for and take responsibility for negative consequences when they
occur. At best, it seems to be a willful ignorance.
society is ailing not from its defeats but from its triumphs" (Beck,
World at Risk, 22). That's not quite right. More accurately, modern
society is ailing from fundamental failures (i.e., defeats)--a
blindness to the social consequences of (social constructed)
"triumphs" which perhaps ought not to be considered triumphs at all
considering that they produce new risks that are possibly equal to
their triumph. Perhaps another way of articulating Beck's insight is
to say that modern society is ailing from fundamental flaws in its
value structure that is unable to align its notions of progress and
triumph with responsibility for its consequences. Thus, a better
title might be "Juvenile World at Risk."
I would also like to take issue with how Beck frames his comparison of
environmental, economic and terrorist threats. I agree that there is
a difference between environmental and economic dangers, on the one
hand, and terrorism on the other. However, I do not think that the
distinction turns on either the presence of "goods and bads" or
"purpose."
In World at Risk, Beck argues: "An essential difference between
environmental and economic dangers, on the one hand, and the terrorist
threat, on the other, resides in the fact that in the latter case
purpose takes the place of chance. Environmental crises and economic
threats due to global financial flows, in spite of all their
differences, exhibit a commonality: they must be understood in terms
of the dialectic of goods and bads, and hence as contingent side
effects of decisions in the process of modernization. This is not
true of the new terrorism, which annuls the rational principles of
former risk calculations because purpose replaces chance and
maliciousness replaces good will." (Beck, World at Risk, 13-14)
Here, Beck omits two significant points. On terrorism, Beck omits the
fact that terrorism occurs within a global network of violence, where
the relationships between the terrorist and the terrorized and the
origins of their conflicts are far from simple. Second, on the role
of purpose and chance, it is difficult for me to construe
economic and environmental threats as chance and not purposeful...at
least in part. As Beck admits, the threats that he is discussing are
generated by human conduct. Moreover, given historical accounts of
the abuse of power and global movements against environmental
degradation and laissez-faire capitalism, it is hard to argue that
contemporary contributions to environmental and economic threats is
not purposeful, at least in the sense of being aware of the
probability of creating threat and an unwillingness to aggressively
look for and take responsibility for negative consequences when they
occur. At best, it seems to be a willful ignorance.
Drew Love
Feb 21, 2011, 6:21:25 PM2/21/11
to consumption-and...@googlegroups.com
Beck's understanding of risk and its conveyance to the public is an accurate, yet incomplete depiction of how the public sentiment is informed, and formulated. Beck defines risk as "social constructions and definitions based upon corresponding relations of definition" (30). He is right to label risks as social constructions. Even though it can be clearly argued that a risk is a perception and interpretation of an objective truth, that truth has no effect upon society until it has been perceived. If a society is conscious of a danger, whether it be real or not, then the society is aware of risk which serves as the necessary first step to reacting to that risk.
Missing from Beck's understanding of risk, is the institution that has the most power for staging that risk. Staging is a crucial concept in which a danger is revealed to the public. Beck, I believe incorrectly, states that "the dominant relations of definition accord the engineering and natural sciences a monopoly position (34)." Beck's analysis places scientists as "distillers" of the truth, who then immediately turn their new understanding over to the public. The first flaw here is that science is often divided against itself about many different matters, and is rarely the bastion of certainty that Beck implicitly understands it to be. The second flaw, is that Beck neglects to mention media. Media, in my opinion, is the means by which science, or any other topic, is transmitted to the public. Media, and not science, is the primary authority on definitions, and what should be perceived as a risk.
I would also be interested in exploring Beck's theory to determine how certain groups perceive the same risk. Once again, Beck seems to be simplifying his theory in that all people listen to the same scientists, or are subject to the same "staging forces." But I wonder if political affiliation, as well as other belief systems, determine what an individual perceives as risk, and\or influences which authorities the individual believes are trust worthy staging entities.
L Carfagna
Feb 21, 2011, 7:41:58 PM2/21/11
to consumption-and...@googlegroups.com
What would happen if the opposite of risk wasn't security, but instead sustainability? Would our world seem so "out of hand" if sustainability was a possibility? To me, sustainability seems like a living, breathing process - one that holds the same cultural forces as risk and has the same prospects for institutionalization as risk. Security feels like a guarantee - sustainability feels like a responsibility. In that same vein, Beck's work feels like a call for social justice. At the end of chapter 2, he states "Only a strong, competent public sphere 'armed' with scientific arguments is capable of separating the scientific wheat from the chaff and of reconquering the power of independent judgement from the institutions for regulating technology, namely, politics and law" (44). What is this public sphere, where is it, and who is included in it? Do peasant farmers in India need to be armed with scientific arguments to understand sustainability (or security) and understand the tautological nature of risk? (I think not)
I agree with Gerone's statement that "modern society is ailing from fundamental flaws in its value structure that is unable to align its notions of progress and triumph with responsibility for its consequences." Do the fundamental flaws of modern society that he describes prevent the possibility of this public sphere? Further, is the answer to much of this in the de-institutionalization of modern institutions? For example, how is it possible for me to claim to be part of this critical "public sphere" when so much of my daily life is materially dependent upon a system of production and consumption institutionalized so I do not know my impact? When my consumption practices are interdependent with production systems in the "global south", which are further a project of modernization, how is it even possible for me to culturally constitute a coherent challenge of risk without full commitment to social justice first? Will social justice deinstitutionalize some of these systems so intimately tied to law and science?
Gemma
Feb 21, 2011, 8:06:09 PM2/21/11
to consumption-and...@googlegroups.com
I agree with Gerone, in that I found Beck’s comment that “the world can no longer control the dangers produced by modernity … because of its triumphs” to be contradictory (8). I do not agree that the belief that modern society can control the dangers it produces is collapsing. It seems that a large portion of society is placing too much faith in technology and the successes of the industrial age, so that the average citizen does not feel compelled to take action against global warming. The world has the ability to control the dangers produced by modernity, but feelings of insecurity and imminent danger are not felt universally concerning climate change.
I also find that Beck hyperbolizes the “cosmopolitan vision” (19). I can think of several instances that I consider genuine threats that are not necessarily global threats, and only affect local communities, such as Minamata disease in Niigata, Japan and the genocides in Darfur and Rwanda. Each of these events were incredibly damaging to each community that was directly involved, but had little to no impact on far away countries such as the United States.
Connecting back to our discussion about Green consumers and their taking up of LCC values, I wonder if this particular movement could be interpreted as a response to Giddens’ characterization of modernity. He characterizes the individual in a modern society as feeling “bereft and alone in a world in which she or he lacks the psychological supports and the sense of security provided by more traditional settings” (33). Furthermore, “modernity breaks down the protective frame work of the small community and of tradition, replacing these with much larger, impersonal organizations.” Giddens makes it seem as if it is impossible to escape mass produced, synthetics goods in today’s society, so in order for HCC’s to successfully find true self-expression and a decommodified lifestyle they must turn away from cosmopolitan society and towards “green” LCC values, such as strong local community, connection, and local roots. Can the current green movement pacify today’s risk society?
Emilie Dubois
Feb 21, 2011, 8:01:27 PM2/21/11
to Consumption and Sustainability
Tom,
I agree with you concern that much of the articulated agency among
Connolly and Prothero's sample results from some interaction between
their education levels and urban communities. The mix of empowerment,
ambivalence, and guilt the authors highlight in their participants
narratives would be more compelling to me if the socioeconomic
positions along which they were arranged were made more explicit.
Maybe this type of consciousness is common for consumers of all
backgrounds and current means, however, the 14 people they talked with
leave me less than convinced. In fact, the authors claim the opposite
about their sample:
We were also hoping to include different social backgrounds, if
possible. Indeed, while the aim of participant selection was to
select participants who have lived the social experience that is the
focus of the study, and who would be willing to talk about their
experience, they also needed to be diverse enough to enhance
possibilities for a variety of divergent experiences. This was useful
in terms of widening the possibility for including negative instances
to enhance both the reliability and validity of the findings (2009,
pg. 123).
The above passage reads, to me, like a far-reaching generalizability
and veracity claim. Simply put, where is the diversity? Maybe it is
within their stratified sample, but it isn't documented plainly. This
article has problems with scope in other ways as well. For example,
the authors briefly mention that some scholars argue that "encouraging
individuals to consume less or buy green products, such as organic
food or recycled paper, is an ineffective means of securing
environmentally friendlier social changes" but never return to this
possibility( 2009, pg. 118). If this claim were at least, in part,
true it would fundamentally undermine the authors' primary project of
"understanding the process that has led people to believe that they,
as individuals, can help solve global environmental problems (Connolly
and Prothero 2009, pg. 142). Their argument is that the efficacy of
the strategy isn't important, but the nascent drive to help globally
by acting locally is what truly merits consideration. Plainly, this
logic seems backwards. Yes, purchases are often connected to emotional
work that helps to mitigate feelings of living within an
incomprehensibly risky society, however, these propensities don't
distract from the importance of what exactly (and how much) is
actually being consumed. The authors provide anecdotes from diary
studies that hint at disparities between rhetoric and behavior (Deidre
boycotts some unethical corporations while purchasing cigarettes from
a company known to target children) without systematically analyzing
trends and patterns within these data. The Bureau of Labor Statistics
reports that the American contemporaries of these Irish participants
spent 24 minutes each day purchasing things. If this pattern is
transferable, then the authors have over 500 (((14 participants)(90
days of diary entries)(24 minutes of daily purchasing))/(60 minutes) =
one big missing story)hours of under-analyzed diary entries about
purchasing decisions. This rant is not meant to totally undercut the
author's contribution, but simply to seriously challenge their
decision to 'pass over' whether or not green consumption is actually
effective. The anxieties of late modernity are a play here, for sure,
however, why consider them so seriously if they revolve around a
completely ineffectual practice?
Em
I agree with you concern that much of the articulated agency among
Connolly and Prothero's sample results from some interaction between
their education levels and urban communities. The mix of empowerment,
ambivalence, and guilt the authors highlight in their participants
narratives would be more compelling to me if the socioeconomic
positions along which they were arranged were made more explicit.
Maybe this type of consciousness is common for consumers of all
backgrounds and current means, however, the 14 people they talked with
leave me less than convinced. In fact, the authors claim the opposite
about their sample:
We were also hoping to include different social backgrounds, if
possible. Indeed, while the aim of participant selection was to
select participants who have lived the social experience that is the
focus of the study, and who would be willing to talk about their
experience, they also needed to be diverse enough to enhance
possibilities for a variety of divergent experiences. This was useful
in terms of widening the possibility for including negative instances
to enhance both the reliability and validity of the findings (2009,
pg. 123).
The above passage reads, to me, like a far-reaching generalizability
and veracity claim. Simply put, where is the diversity? Maybe it is
within their stratified sample, but it isn't documented plainly. This
article has problems with scope in other ways as well. For example,
the authors briefly mention that some scholars argue that "encouraging
individuals to consume less or buy green products, such as organic
food or recycled paper, is an ineffective means of securing
environmentally friendlier social changes" but never return to this
possibility( 2009, pg. 118). If this claim were at least, in part,
true it would fundamentally undermine the authors' primary project of
"understanding the process that has led people to believe that they,
as individuals, can help solve global environmental problems (Connolly
and Prothero 2009, pg. 142). Their argument is that the efficacy of
the strategy isn't important, but the nascent drive to help globally
by acting locally is what truly merits consideration. Plainly, this
logic seems backwards. Yes, purchases are often connected to emotional
work that helps to mitigate feelings of living within an
incomprehensibly risky society, however, these propensities don't
distract from the importance of what exactly (and how much) is
actually being consumed. The authors provide anecdotes from diary
studies that hint at disparities between rhetoric and behavior (Deidre
boycotts some unethical corporations while purchasing cigarettes from
a company known to target children) without systematically analyzing
trends and patterns within these data. The Bureau of Labor Statistics
reports that the American contemporaries of these Irish participants
spent 24 minutes each day purchasing things. If this pattern is
transferable, then the authors have over 500 (((14 participants)(90
days of diary entries)(24 minutes of daily purchasing))/(60 minutes) =
one big missing story)hours of under-analyzed diary entries about
purchasing decisions. This rant is not meant to totally undercut the
author's contribution, but simply to seriously challenge their
decision to 'pass over' whether or not green consumption is actually
effective. The anxieties of late modernity are a play here, for sure,
however, why consider them so seriously if they revolve around a
completely ineffectual practice?
Em
Hyemi
Feb 21, 2011, 8:24:39 PM2/21/11
to Consumption and Sustainability
Giddens states that in high modernity, people choose their own
lifestyle, while at the same time they are forced to choose. This is
indicated as he states, "A lifestyle can be defined as a more or less
integrated set of practices which an individual embraces, not only
because such practices fulfill utilitarian needs, but because they
give material form to a particular narrative of self-identity(Giddens,
81).
I am impressed by Gidden's explanation regarding lifestyle. I think
that lifestyle is merely an option that is chosen that is constituted
in much the same way style is, and therefore I did not think it could
contain or imply any special worth or meaning related to self-identity
or social structure.
The concept of "lifestyle" seems to be similar to "habitus" of
Bourdieu. However, they are not the same. Giddens, contrasted to
Bourdieu's theory, emphasizes the aspect of "choice" of lifestyle
rather than something being "handed down". In this context, questions
arise as to how we can decide to choose a specific lifestyle among
several lifestyles under high modernity just as the question of how
people can decide to be a green consumer under the circumstances
despite the conflict between individualization and globalization.
On Jan 28, 4:37 pm, Emilie Dubois <emilie.anne.dub...@gmail.com>
wrote:
lifestyle, while at the same time they are forced to choose. This is
indicated as he states, "A lifestyle can be defined as a more or less
integrated set of practices which an individual embraces, not only
because such practices fulfill utilitarian needs, but because they
give material form to a particular narrative of self-identity(Giddens,
81).
I am impressed by Gidden's explanation regarding lifestyle. I think
that lifestyle is merely an option that is chosen that is constituted
in much the same way style is, and therefore I did not think it could
contain or imply any special worth or meaning related to self-identity
or social structure.
The concept of "lifestyle" seems to be similar to "habitus" of
Bourdieu. However, they are not the same. Giddens, contrasted to
Bourdieu's theory, emphasizes the aspect of "choice" of lifestyle
rather than something being "handed down". In this context, questions
arise as to how we can decide to choose a specific lifestyle among
several lifestyles under high modernity just as the question of how
people can decide to be a green consumer under the circumstances
despite the conflict between individualization and globalization.
On Jan 28, 4:37 pm, Emilie Dubois <emilie.anne.dub...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Monique
Feb 21, 2011, 7:55:49 PM2/21/11
to Consumption and Sustainability
What implications do theories of risk, trust, expert systems, and
reflexivity have for the prospects of increasing the sustainability of
consumption within the U.S.?
Beck argues, “Risks are social constructions and definitions based
upon corresponding relations of definition…. [T]heir reality can be
dramatized or minimized, transformed or simply denied according to the
norms which decide what is known and what is not (p30)”. Giddens
contends: A lifestyle involves a cluster of habits and orientations,
and hence has a certain unity – important to a continuing sense of
ontological security….(p82)”. Individuals construct their lifestyles,
at least in part, by incorporating advice from a variety of experts
who are vested with trust by the individuals (Giddens). When a
consumer is confronted with either contested definitions of risk
associated with a product that is characterized as unsustainable or
when the person’s ontological sense of security would be threatened by
discontinuing the use of a product that has been deemed unsustainable,
the consumer might feel an existential crisis that would be more
likely to lead to maintenance of the status quo than to changing his
or her consumption patterns.
reflexivity have for the prospects of increasing the sustainability of
consumption within the U.S.?
Beck argues, “Risks are social constructions and definitions based
upon corresponding relations of definition…. [T]heir reality can be
dramatized or minimized, transformed or simply denied according to the
norms which decide what is known and what is not (p30)”. Giddens
contends: A lifestyle involves a cluster of habits and orientations,
and hence has a certain unity – important to a continuing sense of
ontological security….(p82)”. Individuals construct their lifestyles,
at least in part, by incorporating advice from a variety of experts
who are vested with trust by the individuals (Giddens). When a
consumer is confronted with either contested definitions of risk
associated with a product that is characterized as unsustainable or
when the person’s ontological sense of security would be threatened by
discontinuing the use of a product that has been deemed unsustainable,
the consumer might feel an existential crisis that would be more
likely to lead to maintenance of the status quo than to changing his
or her consumption patterns.
John Petroff
Feb 22, 2011, 12:36:42 AM2/22/11
to Consumption and Sustainability
In regards to Connolly and Prothero, a couple of things stood out to
me. Firstly, green consumers cannot avoid certain contradictions of a
green lifestyle. The article noted this problem with a few subjects.
One went as far as to say that it is impossible to live a completely
green life. I've thought for a while that green consumers who buy
green products for self protection or because it is trendy (designer
reusable grocery bag collectors come to mind) have little
understanding of the ecological issues they are addressing by
purchasing certain products. But even those who have a deep
understanding of ecology and environmental problems cannot address
each issue that they have learned about. For example, I understand how
much water an average shower uses, and I understand that I consume an
inequitable amount of water by taking even a brief shower, but I will
continue to take showers despite the ecological and social
consequences. This thought process can make green consumers feel
helpless as demonstrated by the one subject who decided to quit living
a green lifestyle. Connolly and Prothero touch on this issue briefly
when they discuss the impact of social expectations on consumer
behavior, but they could elaborate more on how behavior that is not
driven by materialism can still lead to results that green consumers
would not view favorably. There must be a considerable cognitive
dissonance effect for educated green consumers who are still a part of
mainstream society.
I also could not help but notice how applicable Sassatelli's article
is to Connolly and Prothero. Consumer behavior and voting with one's
wallet certainly has a role in the transition to a more sustainable
economy, but neither article can say to what extent. Ultimately,
institutional changes must be made. Will these institutional changes
be forced by contracts and legislation, or will consumers build an
adequate level of demand to make change attractive to the
institutions? I do not foresee either scenario taking place for quite
some time.
me. Firstly, green consumers cannot avoid certain contradictions of a
green lifestyle. The article noted this problem with a few subjects.
One went as far as to say that it is impossible to live a completely
green life. I've thought for a while that green consumers who buy
green products for self protection or because it is trendy (designer
reusable grocery bag collectors come to mind) have little
understanding of the ecological issues they are addressing by
purchasing certain products. But even those who have a deep
understanding of ecology and environmental problems cannot address
each issue that they have learned about. For example, I understand how
much water an average shower uses, and I understand that I consume an
inequitable amount of water by taking even a brief shower, but I will
continue to take showers despite the ecological and social
consequences. This thought process can make green consumers feel
helpless as demonstrated by the one subject who decided to quit living
a green lifestyle. Connolly and Prothero touch on this issue briefly
when they discuss the impact of social expectations on consumer
behavior, but they could elaborate more on how behavior that is not
driven by materialism can still lead to results that green consumers
would not view favorably. There must be a considerable cognitive
dissonance effect for educated green consumers who are still a part of
mainstream society.
I also could not help but notice how applicable Sassatelli's article
is to Connolly and Prothero. Consumer behavior and voting with one's
wallet certainly has a role in the transition to a more sustainable
economy, but neither article can say to what extent. Ultimately,
institutional changes must be made. Will these institutional changes
be forced by contracts and legislation, or will consumers build an
adequate level of demand to make change attractive to the
institutions? I do not foresee either scenario taking place for quite
some time.
Shan
Feb 22, 2011, 2:10:10 AM2/22/11
to Consumption and Sustainability
Reading Giddens, I find myself interested in the way in which the
concept of time operates in the narrative life of the high modern
self. So many of our assumptions about who we are and what we are
doing/must do turn on our relationship with time, and in the high
modern period, the focus on time happens to be directed toward the
future. Giddens talks about the "temporal unfolding of self-
identity" (14), and he is interested in the narrative (and linear)
elements of the self that help us to gain a sense of control of time
(76-7). As he interprets his interlocutors, personal growth takes
place over time, presumably leading to a better future for the self
(79), especially if we will engage in writing the temporal story of
the self on the pages of a journal or as an autobiography (72).
Additionally, the conditions in which the self unfolds itself in
narrative space include the separation of time from space as well as
the recombination of the two (16-7). And the concern with risk has
everything to do with thinking about the future, assessing that
future, and using practices and experts to help manage that imagined
future (31). Regarding time, Giddens himself seems to assume that time
flows in a fairly linear fashion from past to present to future--or if
he does not assume this, then he uses that linear framework as a basic
structure on which to hang his own thesis, which has to do with the
"trajectory of the self" across space and time (72).
I wonder what would happen to Gidden's description of the high modern
self if we were to conceive of time differently--as a circle, perhaps?
Or maybe a spiral? An accordion? A dot exploding in a million
different directions?
I also wonder what time has to do with the self's commodified
experience? As Giddens has it, capitalism's "exchange-value...allows
for the disembedding of economic relations across indeterminate spans
of time-space" (197). So, more specifically, how does this
indeterminacy of time shape the self and its economic relations? If
"commodification does not carry the day unopposed on either an
individual or collective level," how might time help us "react
creatively and interpretatively to processes of commodification which
impinge on [our] lives" (199)?
concept of time operates in the narrative life of the high modern
self. So many of our assumptions about who we are and what we are
doing/must do turn on our relationship with time, and in the high
modern period, the focus on time happens to be directed toward the
future. Giddens talks about the "temporal unfolding of self-
identity" (14), and he is interested in the narrative (and linear)
elements of the self that help us to gain a sense of control of time
(76-7). As he interprets his interlocutors, personal growth takes
place over time, presumably leading to a better future for the self
(79), especially if we will engage in writing the temporal story of
the self on the pages of a journal or as an autobiography (72).
Additionally, the conditions in which the self unfolds itself in
narrative space include the separation of time from space as well as
the recombination of the two (16-7). And the concern with risk has
everything to do with thinking about the future, assessing that
future, and using practices and experts to help manage that imagined
future (31). Regarding time, Giddens himself seems to assume that time
flows in a fairly linear fashion from past to present to future--or if
he does not assume this, then he uses that linear framework as a basic
structure on which to hang his own thesis, which has to do with the
"trajectory of the self" across space and time (72).
I wonder what would happen to Gidden's description of the high modern
self if we were to conceive of time differently--as a circle, perhaps?
Or maybe a spiral? An accordion? A dot exploding in a million
different directions?
I also wonder what time has to do with the self's commodified
experience? As Giddens has it, capitalism's "exchange-value...allows
for the disembedding of economic relations across indeterminate spans
of time-space" (197). So, more specifically, how does this
indeterminacy of time shape the self and its economic relations? If
"commodification does not carry the day unopposed on either an
individual or collective level," how might time help us "react
creatively and interpretatively to processes of commodification which
impinge on [our] lives" (199)?
Noel Munoz
Feb 22, 2011, 2:24:47 AM2/22/11
to consumption-and...@googlegroups.com
Beck states in World At Risk, “ Among other things, the world can longer control the dangers produced by modernity; to be more precise, the belief that modern society can control the dangers that it itself produces is collapsing – not because of its omissions and defeats but because of its triumphs.” (pp.8) I completely agree with Beck’s statement because it is our progress and development that is making our current situations even more complex. As our knowledge increases, the problems facing our world increase as well. For instance, Beck writes about the embryos that make newborn babies healthier. Many ethical issues are raised when this type of science is mentioned. I do not believe that people are against having healthier babies. The question becomes, who are we to play nature? Birth is suppose to be one of nature’s miracles, but as science progresses it is slowly taking that away. If birth can be scientifically influenced, then how much more do we let our lives be run by science rather than by nature?
maria grinko
Feb 22, 2011, 8:44:57 AM2/22/11
to consumption-and...@googlegroups.com
I actually had the same question as Gerone regarding the issue of "triumphs" or "failures," and how we can't exactly call a lack of foresight a total "triumph."
My discussion question involves something that all three authors discuss, which is the idea that the more we know, the less we "know" for sure. I'm talking about Kant in my philosophy class right now, and we've discussed how he tried to find a mathematical proof for ethics. Apparently finding proofs was all the rage in the Enlightenment. Growing up in high modernity, I'd never suppose that science gives you the end-all be-all Truth; we're taught in grade school that even things that seem totally obvious (like gravity) are just "theories" and can never actually be proven.
The reason I'm bringing this up is because there is the ongoing debate with climate change about whether or not the scientific community can really prove that global warming is not just some natural phenomenon. It seems like people who consider themselves to be educated refute this idea, wondering how anyone could deny the mountain of evidence that shows how human overconsumption has caused environmental changes already and will continue to do so. My question is: do you guys think this tendency to refute scientific conclusions about global warming is, in a way, a curse of high modernity's logic? Is a different approach (such as "healthy skepticism that doesn't allow for irresponsible denial") on the horizon?
My discussion question involves something that all three authors discuss, which is the idea that the more we know, the less we "know" for sure. I'm talking about Kant in my philosophy class right now, and we've discussed how he tried to find a mathematical proof for ethics. Apparently finding proofs was all the rage in the Enlightenment. Growing up in high modernity, I'd never suppose that science gives you the end-all be-all Truth; we're taught in grade school that even things that seem totally obvious (like gravity) are just "theories" and can never actually be proven.
The reason I'm bringing this up is because there is the ongoing debate with climate change about whether or not the scientific community can really prove that global warming is not just some natural phenomenon. It seems like people who consider themselves to be educated refute this idea, wondering how anyone could deny the mountain of evidence that shows how human overconsumption has caused environmental changes already and will continue to do so. My question is: do you guys think this tendency to refute scientific conclusions about global warming is, in a way, a curse of high modernity's logic? Is a different approach (such as "healthy skepticism that doesn't allow for irresponsible denial") on the horizon?
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages