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:
No comments:
Post a Comment