This Is The End

Hold your breath and count to ten.
I don't think I can do this again.

So much for lazy pop-culture references (and a great smile from me if you recognized both).

Preparing the lab book was an interesting experience, both because it widened my perspective and because of the blog form. Admittedly, I did not get any response, but even seeing that someone from the US actually visited this page felt quite surreal. 

Other than that, I feel that I have learned to pay more attention to things which may seem completely mundane, such as making tea, or my favourite chair in the library. Knowing just how many social implications a simple object or process can evoke is quite thrilling, even if it does slow my thinking a bit (so much data to process!).

I was able to show some of the entries to my friends who would not be able to see the actual, physical copy if I did it as a regular notebook (because they are in Poland, for instance), and the feedback and discussion I received proved helpful many times. I suppose I am trying to say thank you. 

Despite today's title, I sincerely hope this end is not an actual End - because maybe, just maybe, at some point someone will actually post a single comment, full of constructive/destructive feedback and critique, and I will be able to respond.

I am saying it mostly because I do not want you, dear reader, to feel as if I was quitting this blog. I am not. If there is any response to my rambling, I will be more than happy to start a dialogue (let us not get ahead of ourselves and call this potential conversation a discourse). So please, write back! Share your thoughts! And hopefully you will enjoy reading and replying as much as I enjoyed making it.

And I will leave you with a wonderful picture of decorated long yams. I think I actually managed not to mention these in a single entry. But do search them up.

Fig. 1 Material Culture!

[source]

Non-painted landscapes, non-phenomenological phenomenology, and Mahatma Gandhi in London

Landscape. What is a landscape? This might be reminiscent of the first image that came to your minds:

Fig. 1 Caspar David Friedrich, 1822. Moonrise Over the Sea.

[source]

Perfect German landscape, created by one of the most famous German landscape painters. Because that is the essence of a landscape – a beautiful overview that can (and will) be painted. Landscape painters, the first association. Landscape as an aesthetic construct, perceived and reiterated for aesthetic purposes in all its objectivity.

So much for paintings. But what about the concept of landscape and its relation to our daily lives? In one of the previous posts I touched upon the concept of space, and how it is only an abstract – the void that remains after we remove all the objects and spatial relations between them. Humans do not perceive 'spaces‘ (can plural form be even applied?)  as much as ‘places‘, constituted by objects, their spatial relations – and human perception of these.

Without the human factor there would be no ground for differentiating between a street and a park, a mall and a house, a road and a pavement – all these distinctions are man-made.

In his essay on the phenomenology of landscape, Chris Tilley emphasizes how the human factor encompasses both our somatic constraints, which force one kind of perception rather than the other, the goals aims we relate to one kind of place, as well as our experiences and preconception, which all influence the way in which we relate to the landscape (Tilley 1994).

I must confess I find it hard to understand why such a philosophical stance should be named phenomenology. Edmund Husserl, the father of phenomenology, conceived his theory as a mean of analyzing the object-in-itself, through the two-staged phenomenological reduction of first, our conception of the existence or non-existence of objects outside our perception and second, all the `accidental‘ variables of a given object (Copleston 2000). Tilley is doing the exact opposite, embracing these variables and integrating them into the objects, in a way arguing that they can only exist as objects of our perception, at least as far as we are concerned. While I would be willing to agree with the general idea, I cannot grasp the reason for borrowing Husserl’s term. If anything, the phenomenology of landscape has more to do with Merlau-Ponty’s ideas – admittedly, their provenance can be traced back to Husserl easily, however they also have a distinct name, and that is phenomenology of the body. Important addition. And just as Merlau-Ponty postulates that we cannot discard the somatic influence over our perception (criticizing all idealists who seem to think of a subject as some sort of transcendent, perceiving machine, rather than a human being), so the phenomenologists of landscape stress the importance of taking the sensory experience into account while analyzing 'places' or 'landscapes' (Hamilton 2006, 32).

For the next – and last – material culture exercise I was asked to go to the Tavistock Square – a tiny park close to UCL – and conduct an analysis of the space, and of Tavistock Square as a landscape. As usual, meticulous guideleines were provided.

Tavistock Square is, as I have mentioned, relatively small, however this is typical for London, where – aside of the gigantic Regent’s Park – one can encounter small parks almost at every corner of the street. Close to where I live alone there is Tavistock Square, Gordon Square, Woburn Square, Russell Square, Euston Square – and I am possibly forgetting about half a dozen (it is also worth noting that Regent’s Park is only a couple steps away).

These are all nice retreats from the hustle and bustle of the city, although it is sometimes hard to forget about the location. While the Tavistock Square is surrounded by a fence with plants growing along, and furthermore the buildings around also form a sort of barrier, the fumes can still be smelled quite easily.

Fig. 2 'Double boundaries'

This does not, however, seem to bother the visitors, who are happy to walk around, jog, hang out with friends or family, read – in other words, do all sorts of leisurely things. Some of the people I encountered were just passing through the park, possibly taking a shortcut, however most appeared to have come there quite intentionally.

What sets the Tavistock Square apart from other parks nearby, however, is the strong historical and political background. One of the first things to notice upon entering is the statue of Mahatma Gandhi standing in the centre.

Fig. 3 Mahatma Gandhi’s statue – note the flowers

People place flowers on its partly hollow pedestal – there was even a red poppy wreath, interesting addition to the statue of a major figure in the pacifist movement.

Fig. 4 Red poppy wreath

Not far from the statue there also is a cherry tree commemorating the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki – while walking around the park, I have noticed a group of Japanese-looking young men (possibly students), who walked through the park straight up to the tree, stood there for a while and left. Apparently it was the only object of interest to them.

Fig. 5 The cherry tree planted to commemorate the Hiroshima and Nagasaki victims

In accordance with these peace symbols, which appeared in the park in late 1960s, there also is a stone 'commemorating conscientious objectors all over the world', added in 1990s.

Fig. 6 Possibly the 7th July 2005 commemoration

I am not certain what this garden is, however in 2006 the British government announced that a memorial garden for the victims of the 7.07.2005 bombing (which took place next to the park) would be set up – perhaps this is it. If so, it is not annoted.

Aside of these historical references, all specifically relating to the war-related issues, there is also some more typical historical background, exemplified by the busts of Virginia Woolf  and Louisa Aldrich-Blake. However London is such a historical city that finidnig such commemorations, especially in the centre, is not unusual.

Fig. 7 Dame Louisa Aldrich-Blake’s bust

One could argue that there are two `layers‘ to the Tavistock Square – one of a typical, London park, used for general recreation, although also having an interesting history, and the other of a peace memorial. While most people seem to treat it just as a park, there are also these who come to the park specifically in order to acknowledge the historical and political references (i.e. the Japanese students described above). In any case, the reverence for all those commemorated did not prevent people from leaving heaps of litter around.

Fig. 8 Since I went to the park in the evening, hopefully someone cleaned them after it was closed

Bibliography:

Copleston, F. 2000. Historia filozofii, tom 9. Warsaw: PAX.

Hamilton, S. 2006. Phenomenology in practice: towards a methodology for a `subjective‘ approach. In: European Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 31-71.

Tilley, C. Y. 1994. Space, place, landscape and perception: phenomenological perspectives. In: Tilley, C. Y.  1994. A phenomenology of landscape: places, paths and monuments, pp. 7-34. Oxford: Berg.

The Friedrich’s picture (fig. 1) appears on the cover of Stefan Chwin’s `Hanneman‘. While he is a Polish author, the novel was translated into English and I strongly encourage anyone who enjoys realism, perhaps particualry 19th-early 2oth century, to read it (the book itself is contemporary, but visibly inspired). He is a master of description, and yet manages not to overuse adjectives. Worth reading, especially if you like Mann, Tolstoy, Gorki or perhaps Faulkner.

But this was just a sideline. 

On the difference between Nescafe and Starbucks, and why shopping is the ultimate expression of love

The next material culture topic was possibly the most controversial one, even more so than art. Consumption. As a student born into a middle class family I have kind of a 'provisional' middle class affiliation, which is likely to disappear as soon as I leave university and get into archaeology… But that is a sideline. The point is that we, middle classes - and I can say that with confidence - love to criticize consumerism, preferably holding a Starbuck latte in one hand and an iPhone in the other. Criticism may well be made, but since we live in a capitalist world anyway, we might as well embrace it - I suppose this is the logic we follow. But consumption is undeniably bad. Everyone who ever bothers to talk about it will say so. Some may even cite Marx and rant about how we attach value to the object, rather than to the labour, even though it is a genuine effort that ought to be praised since it is human, unlike the object, which is - well, an object.

Or some may quote the terrible conditions in the Chinese Apple-Foxconn factories, emphasizing how we contribute to the workers' ill fate through buying Apple products. For anyone interested, I will link two articles in the `bibliography' section. There also is an interesting documentary on the topic, unfortunately I cannot remember the title, I think it was aired on Planete or something similar. 

Truly shocking and grim as it was, I found it rather hilarious when one of the presenters criticized the Foxconn's policies and blamed Apple for all the evil in this world while holding a Dell laptop. Which was also assembled in China. In a Foxconn factory.

Sidelines aside, I would like to try and introduce a bit different point of view. 'Making love in the supermarket'? I would say it is possible (not only in the most literal sense), and, as you shall see - I am not the only one.

My friend (female, 20-year-old UCL student), who was organizing a small movie night/party a couple weeks ago agreed for me to go shopping with her and document the process. We went to Sainsbury's and I would like to comment briefly on the layout of the shop before we go any further.

The shop is located on 21 Hamstead Road in London, UK. The room itself is very spacious and nicely lit, with white floor and walls. The staff are wearing sainsbury’s red and orange uniforms, which makes them easy to spot. It creates an atmosphere of openness and unity, presumably designed to attract more customers.

The commodities are grouped in categories (meals, diary, vegetables, press, alcohol etc.), which is a common practice in many shops. 

Fig. 1 The room is very light and the commodities are neatly labeled

What I find interesting, however, is how the more ‚mundane‘, everyday commodities are laid out on high shelves, possibly to use the space efficiently, and stacked close to the walls, while snacks and related products (dips, crackers, crisps etc.) are put on lower shelves located in the middle of the store. This way the client can see vast alleys full of other goods while shopping for these.

Fig. 2 Lower shelves (there usually are no sweets stacked on the top)

  

Since such products are more likely to be bought for special occasions (i.e. parties), they would not be a part of a well-established shopping routine. A customer entering the shop without a clear list of things to buy in mind is more likely to browse through the shelves and end up buying more, which in my opinion is the reason behind the peculiar layout of these types of commodities.

As for the shopping experience itself - as I have already mentioned, my friend/informant was not doing it for herself, but for the upcoming movie night. Thus she was not buying regular groceries, but had a specific event in mind. I noticed the food she was choosing was not necessarily things she immensely liked herself – she bought an avocado and some hummus, for example, even though she explicitly described them as ‚guest things‘. Interestingly, she did not even know if her guests liked either – I was going to be one of them and she did not ask me, just assumed we did. This might be because they were rather `fashionable‘ foods. Nevertheless, she was making choices having others rather than herself in mind – buying shallots rather than regular onion, for example, since it is more aromatic, and not paying attention to the price. It is rather uncommon as she is a typical student on a tight budget. Thus she was expressing her sympathy and friendship through shopping – and not gift shopping, which would be an obvious example, but through choosing specific kinds of something as mundane as food. This bears a resemblance to Mrs Wynn from Daniel Miller’s ethnographic study. He cited her as an example of a caring housewife, proud of being able to care for others rather than oppressed by them, and expressing her affection through shopping (Miller 1998, 17). It creates a contrast to the often pervading view of shopping being either consumerist and de-humanizing, or just devoid of any moral meaning, positive or negative.

Another interesting thing occured when she was buying sweets. Although she is a sensible person who manages her expenses well and thus often chooses cheaper store products over big brand names, she was reluctant to buy hot chocolate powder from any company other than Cadbury‘s. When asked why, she admitted to not having drank Sainsbury’s hot chocolate and assuming Cadbury’s was better precisely because of the brand name. She later explained that for her, as a British person, Cadbury’s was a big brand name as she grew up surrounded by their products and advertisements. She also stressed how it was not a patriotic sentiment, just a matter of habit. On the other hand, she also recounted how some of her friends were outraged when a foreign company (Kraft) bought Cadbury’s, perceiving it as inevitably linked to a decrease in quality.

I found it interesting how firmly the brand seized the market, appealing to both nostalgic and patriotic sentiments, thus reaching a potentially wide group of British people, but also foreigner who may be willing to savour the local culture and thus buy products perceived as typical. There is the essence of  Britain locked in a jar of hot chocolate – a set of symbols and meanings, which create almost a mythology of a brand (Williams 1980 [1960]). 

Fig. 3 The UK in a jar?

The brand has an immensly strong position and a clearly defined identity (a core element for a succesful brand, as Naomi Klein in `No Logo‘ argues), and my friend’s reluctance to buy any other company’s sweets exemplifies it.

Following this observation, I decided to analyze two brands of a similar product - coffee. First, my preferred Nescafe coffee - since I almost always drink it, I decided to make a collage with all the associations.

Fig. 4 A jar of Nescafe coffee with all the typical associations: quick work breaks, all-nighters, student life, hangover cure. It is cheap, drunk from a mug rather than a fine china, and utilitarian rather than fancy.

As this image demonstrates, there is nothing more different than Starbuck's coffee, this sophisticated, all-American-but-global commodity, fair trade and ultra-capitalist at the same time. 

Starbuck’s coffee undoubtly is a mass produced good – the chain has stores all over the world and prides itself on the uniform quality of coffee. And yet the company desperately tries to make their products personal – and does so on two levels.

First of all, there is the very informal atmosphere the employees are advised to create. They are usually smiling and enthusiastic, cheerful and open rather than politely reserved. In some countries (such as Poland) where it is customary to address strangers by a courtesy title (Mr/Mrs/Miss) in conversation, they omit this social regulation, treating customers as friends. And perhaps the most striking part of this strategy – they ask every customer for their first name, write it on their cup and call them by the name to collect the drinks. `Coffee for Jane!‘ undoubtley sounds more personal than `cappuccion with double cream‘.

All such methods create and atmosphere of familiarity, obscuing the fact that this `coffee for Jane‘ is still exactly the same thing as the dozen cappuccinos with double cream sold to other people. There is nothing personal, save for the name on the cup. I chose Starbuck’s coffee as my example since the company obviosuly attempts to make their products personal – but it is a failed attempt. Mass-produced goods are impersonal by definition – they are supposed to appeal to the widest target group possible. One can, of course, use or mix them in a certain way that would make them personal – but this is an individual action, and each time it is the agency that is personal, not the product itself.

Secondly there is a general target group, which I would define as young, middle class people who perceive themselves as healthy, socially conscious and sophisticated. The branding techniques – emphasizing the fair trade principles, advertising their products as organic, using ingredients perceived as exotic (passion fruit and pomegranate rather than apple or orange for smoothies and sodas), abstaining from selling certain extremely mainstream goods such as coke all appear suited to this sort of people.

It is interesting, however, that this strategy obscures another fact – that Starbuck’s is in fact a large corporation, potentially harmful for the environment. They do not get everything from fair trade sources – coffee is the main product, but cups? Spoons? Aprons? People are less likely to enquire about these. There is a perception of Starbuck’s as being `everything capitalism has to offer‘ (www.followthethings.com/haveigotnewsforyoustarbucks.shtml). It may be challenged (as is the case of the article this quote comes from), however it still is an entity that would not exist in a different economic system.

Some people may thus perceive buying at Starbuck’s as a sign of rather left-wing tendencies – anti-`murderous capitalism‘ expressed through the support for ideas such as fair trade or organic. However, as Naomi Klein notes, such an identity is constructed in order to sell goods, is a part of the capitalist fight for a client and thus belongs to the capitalist system. Buying a cup of starbuck’s coffee is hardly a non-political action – it can be done either in hope to challenge or reassure the existing system, but the corporation’s character and the brand’s identity make it hard to separate politics and the act of making a purchase.

***

That was a long entry, but it would be hard to keep it short if it is on such a controversial topic. This time I shall not ask any questions - just please, say whatever you think! Preferably consumption-related though.

Bibliography:

Miller, D. 1998. Making love in supermarkets. Cambridge: Polity.

Klein, N. 2009. No Logo.  Picador.

Williams, R. 1980 {1960), in: Bevan, A. Wengrow, D. 2010. Cultures of commodity branding. Walnut Creek: Left Coast.

www.followthethings.com/haveigotnewsforyoustarbucks.shtml, accessed: 28.02.2015.

Promised articles:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17557630

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30532463

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-31438699