The research for my 2007 final project began in March of that year. During the summer of '06/'07 I read American Psycho (1991) by Bret Easton Ellis and Affluenza (2007) by Oliver James. These books had very current cultural themes of consumer addiction, celebrity obsession, and the general excesses of western 20th/21st Century lifestyle. Further useful reading was Thorstein Veblen's The Theory of the Leisure Class (1899) and Karl Marx's Capital, Critique of Political Economy (1867). These authors had lived through and critiqued economic boom and bust, and seen consumer frivolity and tragedy, their critiques gave an idea of what was to come...
My conclusion is more or less pointing toward a 'return to self', though it is left a little open ended. My ideal conclusion would have been: "A global recession will financially ruin The U.S.A and Europe, an uprising will be experienced by the ideologically repressed, some more outrageous celebrities will take there own lives, and thus fashion will embrace a radically new set of ideals based on a new set of foundations"
My views on where the industry was going were far more radical than I cared to write down. I think I had shocked my tutors enough by writing about major changes in the way we saw consumerism, many took this as an attack on the fashion industry and therefor themselves, but far from it, i thought it a new beginning!
'The last supper 2007' Mood board: March 2007
The central question in my research is ‘how do consumer products create self image?’
Sociologist and Economist Thorstein Veblen was the first to site – that societies consumption of commodities are a marker of social prestige and status. In 1899, during Europe’s ‘Belle Époque’, Veblen studied “‘a new leisure class in America’ intent on mimicking the lifestyles of the upper classes in Europe”(Miles ’98). Veblen’s theories on this phenomenon are recorded in his book ‘The theory of the Leisure Class’. These European upper classes held and portrayed societies' ideal lifestyle – one of ‘conspicuous consumption’.
A newly affluent middle class in both Europe and America created a need for new technologies, these included automobiles, telephones and aeroplanes. Art and literature became popular with a larger proportion of society. As a result of the lower classes adopting lifestyles of conspicuous consumption the “higher social groupings continually updated their consumption habits in order to stay one step ahead of the Nouveaux riche” (Miles ’98). Consequently consumption became significant largely for its status conferring qualities, the result was a social hierarchy based on consumption patterns (Miles ’98).
Veblen believed that “…no one line of consumption affords a more apt illustration (of conspicuous consumption) than expenditure on dress” (Veblen ’99), for expenditure on dress exemplifies ones status and furthermore ones self, dress must subjectively display ones ‘self’.
“The commercial value of clothing in any modern community is made up to a much larger extent of the fashionableness, the reputability of the goods, than of the mechanical service they render in clothing the person or wearer… dress is eminently a ‘higher’ or spiritual need” (Veblen ’99).
Veblen believed people undergo a “considerable degree of privation in order to afford what is considered a decent amount of ‘wasteful consumption’”, “people will go ill clad in order to appear well dressed”. (Veblen ’99). As dress fashion is both a ‘higher’ need, used in the creation of self-identity, and a form of ‘wasteful consumption’ it can be surmised that consumers want to portray themselves as having an uninhibited ability to consume (and inconspicuously discard). Veblen argues that because true waste (i.e. rubbish) is unsightly, therefore conspicuous consumption is also unsightly as it is wasteful, however this is an issue far removed from the prima facie (first sight) nature of fashion (Veblen ’99).
Fashionable dress is contrived by the wearer at every point to convey that the “wearer does not put forth any useful effort” (Veblen ’99). Neat spotless garments, high heels and long hair are some features which identify the wearer as a consumer but not a producer. Production including manual labour or being physically creative is not fashionable or desirable by the typical consumer. Nor is it desirable to have any sign of human labour put into creating a product.
Commodity Fetishism
Karl Marx argues that this disregard for the production process of a good is a form of ‘commodity fetishism’ when a good “steps forth as a commodity it is changed into something transcendent” (Marx, ’51), it becomes relative to other commodities not for its utilitarian or labour value, but for monetary and fetish value – how highly people hold a commodity in their mind will decipher a price for that good. Capitalist society has glorified consumerism to the point that “money actually conceals, instead of disclosing, the social character of private labour” (Marx, ’72).
The fetish element of a commodity can portray status and individuality. Joseph Heath argues that today’s society does not consume to “fit into society, rather we consume to allow ourselves to standout from the crowd”. “Consumerism… (is) consumers trying to out do one another – competitive consumption”. Even in situations where there is supposedly a level playing field (communist countries, uniformed schools) the slight difference or distinction in ownership (dress) will become an object of fetish, and a form of rebellion (Heath, ’06).
Placing fetish upon commodities is a key aspect of the ‘Affluenza’ phenomenon “n. a painful, contagious, socially transmitted condition of overload, debt, anxiety and waste resulting from the dogged pursuit of more” (de Graaf, 2002). In the most affected areas of 'Affluenza', advertising and subsequently consumer attitude is to a degree controlled by social comparison (James, ’07) – ‘does my identity compare with my ideal identity’ – ‘if not, buy the tiger beer to be in with the art crowd, buy Evisu jeans to walk among the casual elite”. To a high fashion label the distinction of success is when demand cannot or does not need to be meet – “the Prada bag – cheaply produced in plastic with a small metal name tag – so desirable that it becomes a truly fetishistic object.” Labels that stand for “a way of life or an attitude of mind” such as Ralph Lauren or Calvin Klein have by way of marketing “fetishized” identities and “an attitude to life” (McDowell, ’00).
Semiotic Identity
Pierre Bourdieu takes Veblen’s theory of consumption – as a theory of ‘consumption as a signifier of status’, and refines ‘consumption’ as the active involvement of ‘signs, symbols, ideas, and values’ which are used as a means of marking off ones social group from another. Bourdieu defines consumption further as an interaction between the individual and society (Miles ’99).
Today the ideology of consumerism has it that; it is primarily through consumption that we ‘become who we are’, and ‘display who we are’ (Lodziak ’02). The post-modern world encourages us to be whoever we want, as long as we are prepared to consume. As art and design become more desirable to the consumer, to be consumed to create an esoteric identity, an ‘aestheticisation’ of everyday life occurs whereby standards of good taste, good style, and good design have come to invade every aspect of our life (Featherstone ’91). The result – consumers want to be in control of their lives through the ‘portrayal of knowing’ the style origins of their consumer products. In essence consumers have a second hand (to that of the designer) creative control over their lives and identity.
Design: Style and substance
Design and consumption are ubiquitous and contemporaneous, without the high degree of consumption in the West their would be far less need for design, and without design their would be far less consumption, no consumption for example of the many designer products on the market. The constant obsolescence and renewal of fashion products or the elaborate set design for political party conferences and conventions beg the question: is design creating style over substance? Has society become so carried away with consumerism as a way of life that the actual substance that constitutes that life: the utility aspects of fashion clothing or the political party's agenda – has become immaterial? Does the immediacy of good design override the substance of life? (Lodziak, ’02).
Semiotics in Consumerism
Social psychologist Helga Dittmar believes that possessions transcend their instrumental and utilitarian functions, encompassing symbolic meanings within social groups and societies, so that material objects are used as a means of communicating who someone is (or would like to be) both to others and oneself (Miles ’98). Dittmar and other sociologist's theory that consumers are consuming ‘signs, symbols, ideas, and values’ leads postmodernist cultural theorist Jean Baudrillard to surmise that consumers are never satisfied through consumption, because (particularly designer) commodities have become divorced from their function or a defined need, instead they exist in a ‘world of general hysteria’. Through this theory money becomes ‘rootless’ in a social system “characterised by simulation and hyper reality… an aesthetic hallucination of reality” (Baudrillard ’88). Consumption becomes a means of expressing dream like representations. The mass media have a fundamental role in extending such representation – again via ‘signs, symbols, ideas, and values’ (Baudrillard ’88).
Social psychologist Helga Dittmar believes that possessions transcend their instrumental and utilitarian functions, encompassing symbolic meanings within social groups and societies, so that material objects are used as a means of communicating who someone is (or would like to be) both to others and oneself (Miles ’98). Dittmar and other sociologist's theory that consumers are consuming ‘signs, symbols, ideas, and values’ leads postmodernist cultural theorist Jean Baudrillard to surmise that consumers are never satisfied through consumption, because (particularly designer) commodities have become divorced from their function or a defined need, instead they exist in a ‘world of general hysteria’. Through this theory money becomes ‘rootless’ in a social system “characterised by simulation and hyper reality… an aesthetic hallucination of reality” (Baudrillard ’88). Consumption becomes a means of expressing dream like representations. The mass media have a fundamental role in extending such representation – again via ‘signs, symbols, ideas, and values’ (Baudrillard ’88).
Design Obsolescence
In the case of designed commodities, constructed through ‘signs, symbols, ideas, and values’, as opposed to utilitarian commodities, the designer can ensure a constant consumer demand for new commodities. The control of fashion is inherent in all design disciplines, for this reason and the intentional design of product obsolescence, commodities are designed with a limited lifespan. A product that is objectively and technologically surpassed or simply breaks down will create a dubious consumer, however a product that is subjectively surpassed (new seasons fashion) will have the ability to tap into the consumers need to develop his or her identity, created by consuming a new more up to date, more specific identity (Miles, ’98).
Critical analysis of Consumerism
The ideology of consumerism focuses on consumption to the exclusion of all else, the consequence of this is that other sources of meaning, of pleasure and of self-identity are ignored. In many cases objects of consumption do not override the influence of parents, friends, significant role models, our early socialisation, life experience including success and failure, satisfaction and dissatisfaction. The critical analysis of consumerism does not discount all that has been written here, the fact that we live in a growing capitalist world where consumerism is actively encouraged by our governing bodies. Communist countries and Dictatorships are falling to democratic capitalist regimes, creating further possibilities for consumerism to flourish as we head toward the globalisation of a ‘free world’ (Lodziak, ’02)
The Media and identity
“The Celebrity is the public representation of individuality in contemporary culture” (Giles, ’00)
The first time we encounter a media persona, we make the same set of judgements as we make the first time we encounter a real human being – “Do we like the look of them? Do we share any common interests or characteristics? Do they behave in a manor that pleases us? Most importantly of all, would we like to meet them again?” (Giles, ’00). In the case of a consumer viewing a celebrity in the media, this interaction is known as ‘parasocial’ – one sided relations where one knows a great deal about the other but the relationship is not reciprocal.
The parasocial interaction will become a relationship when the viewer re-engages the interaction – thus the initial encounter was satisfying and an ongoing relationship will develop. (Giles, ’00) We pursue parasocial relationships in the same way we pursue ordinary relationships. Whether the parasocial relationship be with soap stars, socialites or reality TV personalities, we will evaluate people on attractiveness, shared values, attitudes, background, and communicative style – their media identity.
Socially isolated individuals may use parasocial interaction (i.e. television) to satisfy their need for actual relationships
“The advantages of parasocial relationships over real ones may be those relating to user control; a parasocial partner does not interact with you, does not let you down, and therefore you have a degree of power in a parasocial relationship.” (Giles, ’00)
Your partner can obtain all manors of fantasy attributes, parasocial interaction can provide the ideal partner, and this is a key reason celebrities are idolised.
Celebrity is the capitalisation of ones individuality and personality, in many cases the personality is fabricated and idealised for mass appeal. Pop musicians adopt many fronts to capitalise on a personality hungry media and audience. The barriers between Pop’s ‘camp posturing’ musicians (Kanye West, Justin Timberlake) and the supposedly serious (Pete Doherty, Kurt Cobain) have long since been blurred and breached, “therefore it has become highly important for the serious acts to display total authenticity” (Giles, ’00). The worst crime a serious band or individual can commit is to ‘sell out’ - to forgo much of the artistic and individual identity, for a change in image that fits with the popular contemporary style. The private and public paradox of personae that celebrities have, adds much ammunition to the critical media’s heavy artillery. When the paradox of public image and private life becomes out of control, many celebrities escape both lives through drugs or suicide.The expectations by the celebrity’s employer – the consumer, for an authentic personal experience are the most trying for the ‘serious’ artist. Kurt Cobain wrote in his explanatory suicide note
“The fact is I can’t fool you, any of you. It simply isn’t fair to you or me. The worst crime I can think of would be to rip people off by faking it and pretending I’m having 100% fun.” (Beebe, Fulbrook, Saunders, ’02)
Without sincerity an artist can and will come across as a premeditated personality, premeditated celebrities will be quickly adopted for their marketed presence by the public, however without continual market presence a close relationship will not be formed and interest will quickly diminish. (Giles, ‘00)
In many cases the posturing celebrity views their working role as pure performance in so much as to act, speak and perform in a fabricated manor, the use of a stage name divides public and private personae further. However the more a celebrity adopts the pseudo-identity the more it envelops their life. The more the media projects the more the public see of the pseudo identity, the less they see of the true identity; thus the well constructed/acted pseudo identity can be accepted as authentic by the public. (Giles, ‘00)
“Reports of soap characters being treated by the public as though ‘in character’… when a character experiences misfortune in a storyline, television companies are often besieged with flowers and letters from viewers” (Giles, ‘00).
Soap Operas often produce the strongest parasocial interaction of all, because of their regularity of exposure, naturalism of storyline, expression of identities and glorification of everyday life (i.e. Friends, Scrubs et al).
Conclusion: Self-Actualisation and Identity
Making superficial decisions – objective decisions, one does not fulfil the needs of the mind. Consumerist decisions are responses of obedience to a company. Creation however “is pure choice, undictated, unrequired” (Walsch, ’95), one should choose through the ‘highest’ idea of themselves, not the highest idea created by an advertising campaign. Advertising campaigns create ‘want’ when the consumer ‘wants to consume a certain identity’ that is exactly what they will end up having – the ‘want of a certain identity’, i.e. a never ending struggle in the gym for an ideal commercial physical identity – there is not creation of self, just obedience of an image. Those who attribute physical attractiveness with self worth are the consumers who buy into the campaigns of fashion brands – which themselves demand objectification. It is a continual pursuit of consuming to be attractive to others, who will satisfy your self worth needs.
Through consumption we attempt to gain control, freedom even love (of self and others). However the thought that these possessions can be obtained from outside ones self is absurd, those elements of life can only truly be created from within. The successful brand is one that can portray through thought, word, and action, its ideology and identity and is accepted (consumed) by consumers through their thought, word and action – their identity. A successful person (like the brand) is one who can create their own thought word and action through their highest thought of themselves – uninhibited. (Walsch, ’95)