Growing Up is Hard to Do

            Every generation has its own "opiate" for the masses.  Opiate in this case being defined as an activity that serves to keep people from remembering the dreariness of their everyday existence.  For the women of the early 1900s (according to Peiss's Cheap Amusements), it was the dance halls.  My parents had their music (from disco to 80s rock).  The overwhelming social distraction that my generation is afflicted with is video gaming.  As with the other "nonproductive" activities, older generations tend to believe that gaming is a waste of time/a bad influence on my generation's behavior.  What separates gaming from the other activities that have been mentioned is the meteoric rise in prominence from childish obscurity to the household name it has become today. 

            Gaming started out as a minor fad in my childhood (with the Sega and Nintendo rivalries and the countless Pokémon trades via link cables) but managed to grow into a multi-billion dollar juggernaut industry, thanks to the likes of Call of Duty and Madden.  I still hold very fond memories from my childhood of Sonic the Hedgehog 2 and the constant struggle to reach the end of the colorful, cutesy race towards the finish(I never did beat the game, incidentally).  The fact that I was making progress by "killing" innumerable robots (most of the early games were careful to ensure that killable enemies were never human) was lost on me as a child.  I was following the actions of a colorful anthropomorphic animal, not a disembodied hand holding a gun.

            That hand, unfortunately, has become the primary avatar of gaming today.  The first person shooter genre (FPS) has gained such prominence in the gaming community primarily due to the ease of which it can be picked up (not unlike the "elite" and "middle-class" people picking up modernized dance moves), but also because it offers the person who plays it an opportunity to unleash mindless fury upon humanoid targets.  Gone are the robotic animals that served as the foes of my childhood, replaced by innumerable faceless gunmen (and voiced by teens who are incredibly well versed in profanity).  Sure, the dances practiced by the women of the 1900s and the music that my parents enjoyed were hardly innocuous activities, but shooting other humans for entertainment raises eyebrows, and probably deservedly so.  I suppose it wouldn't be wrong to admit that gaming has matured in the last twenty years, but is this necessarily a good thing?

Source: Peiss, Kathy. Cheap Amusements. Philadephia: Temple University Press, 1986. Print

By: Andrew Sullivan

Thorsten Veblen in Modern America

                Thorsten Veblen is the famous author of the book entitled The Theory of the Leisure Class written in the year 1899. In this book, he argues that leisure is irrational behavior that is a waste of time, waste of goods, and is meant only to show off wealth and acquire status. In reference to this, Samuel Bowels wrote in reference to Veblen “Spending, he maintained, is driven by relative status considerations, that is by the desire to be a particular type of person as much as by the desire to enjoy the consumer goods…” (Bowles F397). Essentially the idea here is that this keeping up with the Joneses mentality is not just to look good to your neighbors, but to also give yourself the illusion that you are rich.

                In modern times, this practice is still very much prominent. This idea of conspicuous consumption is being done all over the country. A sociological approach to this leads to the assumption that there is an underlying driving force in society that is causing people to want so badly to emulate the wealthier members of society. If Veblen was writing about this today, I believe that he would attribute this consumption to the media. Television shows like MTV Cribs glamorize all of society’s favorite celebrities and athletes that people aspire to be. These shows make the everyday working class individual feel like their life is entirely inadequate. The natural response to that is to attempt to do away with that feeling. Most people, rather than try to better themselves due to hard work, instead turn to consumption in an attempt to boost their meager sense of self worth.

                There is no doubt in my mind that the economical state that our country has been in during the last few years has slowed down this trend. Overall, however, the idea is still the same. People are trying to emulate the rich and powerful as if by some grand osmosis they will become what they desire. As we have talked about in class with people trying to show off their best items in pictures and such, the same is being done today. When someone has you over for dinner they clean and use their best things and it is because of this idea of wanting to look wealthy. I believe that if these individuals didn’t use their welfare checks to purchase iPhone’s and the like, this may be a better place to live.

Source:

Bowles S, Park Y. Emulation, Inequality, and Work Hours: Was Thorsten Veblen Right?. The Economic Journal. 2005. Accessed February 9^th 2013.

Brandon Walter

Paper and data, Catalogs now and then.

     "Whatever it is, you can get it on eBay.” For anyone who's ever been on eBay, or those like it, Amazon, Craigslist, you know that this is true. When watching the film over the Sears and Roebuck catalog I couldn't help but feel the modern day similarities between those of online catalogs, whether it is from a direct store like Target, or in the entire collection of stores like Amazon. The 1943 Sears News Graphic wrote that the Sears catalog "serves as a mirror of our times, recording for future historians today’s desires, habits, customs, and mode of living." (Sears Archives) When watching both the film and personally viewing the catalog presented in class this seemed like a paperback version of what you would browse online today. Is this is just the modern adoption of what was so successful nearly 100 years ago?

     One with an index and another a search bar, both for there time have revolutionized the way that anyone could shop. The Sears catalog in many ways was revolutionary, taking the storefront to your coffee table and seating an entire warehouse sized store into a stack of colorfully illustrated bound paper; incorporating this with the ability of mail-order, a ability to send your product where ever the customer may be. Parallels among the Sears and Roebuck catalog and Amazon could be seen as early as 2000 as “the largest brick-and-mortar bookstores and mail-order catalogs might offer 200,000 titles, an online bookstore could "carry" several times more.” (Rivlin)
  
     While one might assume that the loss of seeing the tangible product and giving your money to a man you won't meet, would hinder the sales of these said businesses products. However as Sears and Roebuck demonstrated and Amazon had repeated with a different coat of paint this is a very successful business type. "It must have felt like Christmas, putting your order in, waiting and receiving that package with what you wanted right in the box." (Mr. Sears' Catalog) Even today virtual online catalogs like Valves, Steam are extremely successful even though the ownership of the product, video games are entirely virtual, much like Amazons kindle. By being able to buy from the comfort of your home, wherever that may be, the convenience of catalogs that existed with in the past 100 years are still relevant today.

"History of the Sears Catalog." Sears Archives. N.p., 23 Mar. 2012. Web. 06 Feb. 2013
   
Mr. Sears' Catalogue. E1 Entertainment, November 6, 1996. Videocassette
   
Rivlin, Gary (July 10, 2005). "A Retail Revolution Turns 10". The New York Times. Retrieved August 4, 2011.


--- Max Mongenas

Why do we criticize American consumerism?

             Why do we criticize American consumerism? Why is it that we as Americans who have the freedom to buy as we like, of the products we choose, in the manor that we see fit; gain such an expansive list of those who criticize the consumer environment that we as a capitalist nation have created? Is it wrong to enjoy a little conspicuous consumption, or is it hollowing out who we are for displays of wealth and greed? James Twitchell argued exactly this.

               Is capitalism the monster that Marx claimed it would become? An immediate side effect of a market of the free variety such as ours is Materialism. A never ending hunger to be defined by the things you buy, as the person you are. Twitchell did immediately agree that our culture can be blamed for “the rise of eating disorders, the epidemic of depression, the despoliation of cultural icons, the corruption of politics, the carnivalization of holy times like Christmas, and the gnat-life attention span of our youth.” (Twitchell) But he questioned that most of us would agree that we would rather take the bad with the good and live in a consumer culture than live in one quite the opposite, one of oppression of choice. This however does not mean to take materialism in with open arms because the opposite becomes so oppressed. Marx used his insight into capitalism to help the struggle against it, but he was looking at it all wrong. His efforts were to stop capitalism and its mad consumptive ways while he should have looked “to appreciate how (capitalism) works so its furious energy may be understood and exploited.” (Twitchell)

               Ultimately is it the morality of it all. The reasoning why you buy that says whether or not you have you have overcome materialism, or if it’s overcome you. We all know that just because Richard Corry had money, wealth and style, and that didn’t make him better than that factory worker; and that is exactly the point. Saying consumerism is a societal plague is scapegoating the problem beyond you. A high school kid going into college in a consumer driven society chooses his major from something he knows he will make a lot of money and therefore have a lot of spending power. He chooses a law degree or a business degree because he knows that spending power is what he wants from his job.  This kid who chooses his major for these reasons may only find happiness accidentally. He will not find happiness from this for spending money creates a short span of happiness, but cannot fill an emptiness that is there. He is chasing consumerism, he is not chasing the meaning behind what he wants to do, how he can fulfill it and how he can be fulfilled. This is the ultamate side effect of a consumerist society, but is it society’s fault, or your own for letting it happen.

Twitchell, James. "Two Cheers for Materialism." The Wilson Quarterly Spring 1999: 19+. Web.

The Richard Corry shoehorn for those who are not familiar. (http://www.lyricsfreak.com/s/simon+and+garfunkel/richard+cory_20124655.html)

---- Max Mongenas

The War On American Department Stores

                        The War On American Department Stores
In our most, recent class sessions we've discussed the rise of the “department” store to prominence. In the early years of American consumerism, people would visit locally owned country stores where items were haphazardly distributed throughout and there were was no pattern or theme in which goods were organized within the business. However, as we've learned in the latter stages of the 19th century entrepreneurs such as Alexander T. Stewart and Marshall Field were the first to organize their goods into “departments” which in turn revolutionized shopping history in terms of American consumers. Instead of having to search endlessly and tediously for the items they needed in the archaic country store, consumers could go straight to the department which fitted their individual needs.  These revolutionary departments included textiles, toys and other popular dry goods. Department stores were birth of the consumer ideology of “one stop shop” as the majority of a consumer’s needs could be met by visiting one store. Fast forward a century or so and there are still a myriad of middle class department stores such as Sears, Macy’s, JC Penny’s and Kohl’s which inhabit the landscape of many American shopping centers. I can remember as a teenager visiting these stores with parents for most of our shopping needs.
Despite the overwhelmingly convenience offered by these department stores, they are no longer viewed as the dominant businesses in the America’s consumer landscape. An article entitled ‘The Dying Discount Department Store” on US News’ website described the two pronged assault that is currently being waged on middle class department stores. One side of the war being waged on the aforementioned department stores is the shift of consumers to “big-box” stores such as Wal-Mart, Sam’s Club and Target. While these “big-box” stores contain the same kinds of departments as JC Penny’s or Kohl’s location, they also contain foods and fresh produce which allows even further convenience for consumers. The article also described a shift in which American consumers have come to value “hands-on customer” service which is present in higher-end stores such as Nordstrom and Saks. Overall, utilizing sales data gathered from the Commerce Department, this article summarized the monetary losses faced by department stores by stating that, “in June, department store sales were down by 3.2 percent from one year ago. In the second quarter they were also down 2.4 percent from one year prior” (Kurtzleben).
       The information presented in this article begs the question, why have American consumers turned their backs on the same department stores that they once solely relied upon for their consumer needs? In my personal opinion, the majority of shifts in consumer behavior are predicated on convenience alone. The rise of “big-box” stores and online shopping is slowly but surely providing the final nail in the coffin of the average American department store.

Sources: Kurtzleben, Danielle. "The Dying Discount Department Store." US News. U.S.News & World Report, 23 July 2012. Web. 30 Jan. 2013

By: Tyler Tucker

                             

Homosocial Society: Women in Isolation

                Leisure is something that is not a new concept, rather what we do during this leisure time is what has changed through the ages. According to Plato, the great Greek philosopher, “Leisure is the time free for self-development and expression. More than freedom from necessity; it is freedom for engagement…” (Freysinger 34). The Freysinger book also offers up a definition of leisure, which is difficult to do considering it is an ever changing thing. She said that leisure is “activity chosen in relative freedom for its qualities of satisfaction. An activity that is done primarily for the experience itself.” (Freysinger 5).  I feel as if this definition is a perfect way to describe women’s leisure during the homosocial culture of the late nineteenth century. Today relative freedom mainly means doing what you want within the confines of legality and finances, but back then women also had their womanhood to worry about. Even slight interactions with men could be viewed by society as blasphemous.

                These issues of womanhood were felt especially by married women who were involved in the public sphere. Drinking, a common social leisure activity for men was not something that was shared by women. In fact, Peiss says that many women never even entered a saloon. So what does all this tell us about consumerism at the time? Essentially in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, just about all leisurely consumption was being done by men. Generally speaking, the men would work their twelve hour day at the factory while the women worked at home and occasionally ran errands, then the men would get off work and go down to the pub while the women stayed home taking care of children, and then the men would come home drunk while the women had been home all the while.

                So what’s missing? That would be any semblance of a relaxation time for the women. Peiss says “Many women spend their leisure sitting on the steps of the tenement gossiping…” (22), that doesn’t seem too relaxing to me. In some cases, it could definitely be argued that the twelve hour factory days of the men were much harsher and labor intensive than the women’s work. I believe, however, that the situation that the women were in was much worse. Falling into a constant routine of housework and chores and very rarely getting to do anything to relax would be unbelievably mentally exhausting, and it is for this reason that I believe that the heterosocial cultural structure began to come about. I theorize that people began to realize that they were only tapping into half of the consumers on the market for these leisure activities, and by including women they could see both a rise in profits and a rise in consumption. I believe that this is the reason for the slow, steady integration of women into leisure culture.

Sources used:

Peiss, Kathy. Cheap Amusements. Philadephia: Temple University Press, 1986. Print.

Freysinger, Valeria, and John R. Kelly. 21^st Century Leisure. Pennsylvania: Venture Publishing Inc, 2004. Print.

By: Brandon Walter

Single Women’s Use of Leisure Time: 

Over 100 Years A Part…..Same Concept

Society and its many aspects have certainly evolved since about the year 1900. Then, the first practical automobile had just been built fifteen years prior, most of the sports that we center our hearts around today were either just coming into their own or not invented yet, and the average salary for an American production worker in 1909 (which was the first record of the sort taken) was $3.80/hr. Now, there are well over one hundred different car, truck, and motorcycle manufacturers, sports have become quite ridiculous in their news coverage and revenue, and the average salary for a production worker taken in 1999 was $13.90/hr. We have undoubtedly progressed technologically as a whole over this time. But, when it comes down to it, some of our mannerisms, intentions, and behavior have not changed all that much in some aspects. Take working-class women for example; about that time in history women, in a broad sense, were just starting to realize that they could have a life that was not centered around the home and a family. They were capable of having some fun after a long days work. Peiss states in her book Cheap Amusements: Working Women and Leisure in Turn-of-the-Century New York:

“Not content with quiet recreation in the home, they sought adventure in dance halls, cheap theaters, amusement parks, excursion boats, and picnic grounds. Putting on finery, promenading the streets, and staying late at amusement resorts became an important cultural style for many working women.” (Peiss- pg. 57)

There were two places that were of little or no expense that women used to fulfill their desire to be socially engaged; one was called the “Streets”. Peiss explains the “Streets” as somewhere that the young women could freely express themselves. They did not have to worry about the restrictions of such behavior in the streets as they did either at school or in the boarders of home and the workplace. 

“In their teens, young women and men used the streets as a place to meet the other sex, to explore nascent sexual feelings, and carry on flirtations, all outside the watchful eyes and admonitions of parents.” (Peiss- pg. 58)

The second of the two were Social Clubs. These offered pretty much the same thrills as did the “Streets” only with more organization. They were basically what we know as a dance club or bar today. It was geared towards the women freely enjoying themselves, while also meeting men and showing off their new clothes.

My argument is that the philosophy behind what women intended on portraying during their nights out back then is almost dead on what women intend to do on nights out in this era. I spent three years working at a bowling alley. It provided the same settings as the “Streets” and Social Clubs did in the past. There was a bar area with room for dancing, every Saturday night we had a Glow-Bowl with lights and music, so that gave the women the same atmosphere. Through my time working there, I witnessed single and married women of all ages come out on a Friday or Saturday night and just have fun; the teens and college women more so than the married women. They would come in with their group of friends, I’d see them scouting out the men, just as the women of 1900 did, they danced and bowled while also spending some time with their significant others if they had them, or the group of friends they came with. Another thing that I really did not think twice about then, but have realized now, is countless times I overheard the women gossiping over the trends. They would talk about shoes, and clothes, and jewelry, and that new pair of jeans that they just had to buy. I saw all kinds of interactions between women and men while working there. Bowling and going to bars really is not all that cheap, but I do believe that it falls into the category of our era’s cheap amusements. Yes, times have changed. Yes, with the influence of technology our society has become much more evolved in the ways we interact with each other. Despite all that advancement and change, the overall intentions of a woman, single or married, when they “go out” has really not changed all that much.

--Casey Hatton 

Sources:

Peiss, Kathy Lee. Cheap Amusements: Working Women and Leisure in Turn-of-the-Century New York. Philadelphia: Temple UP, 1986. Print.

Link to where I got the salary information

"Musics" Affects On Young Americans Consumerism

John M Westover

History 379

"Musics" Affects On Young Americans Consumerism

                Over the years I have noticed a growing trend toward how hip hop and the way it has affected the spending habits of young Americans. People like Lil Wayne, Drake, and Two Chains project their image utilizing materialistic lyrics. Naturally this want or materialistic mind set rubs off on the droves of young Americans that buy their albums, t-shirts, and concert tickets.  Allen Kanner, PhD states "that marketers manipulate that attraction, encouraging teens to use materialistic values to define who they are and aren't. In doing that, marketers distort the organic process of developing an identity by hooking self-value to brands." [1]

                So now we live in a society that has become obsessed with brand names and fashions and it does not matter if you are a good or bad person; if you have money it you can say anything and still have droves of fans. Lil Wayne has proven this time and again off his album Tha Carter III the song Playin' With Fire he states "When you're great, it's not murder, it's assassinate / So assassinate me, bitch /Cause I'm doing the same shit Martin Luther King did."[2] This Statement is clearly moronic and delusional but since he is famous his wealth continues to grow because as young Americans we have been sold on the idea that having lots of money means you get a free pass on being intelligent . I cannot tell you how many times I have heard people at work, people in class, and people in public using lyrics that revolve around absurdly expensive possessions like Maybach (400,000 dollar car), Louis Vuitton (2,095 dollar purse). More and more Americans are having these absurdly expensive things shoved in our face and there is no reason for any normal person to want to spend that kind of money on mundane items like clothes, cars, bags, etc. In conclusion, while the moral fabric of our society quickly deteriorates more and more young Americans who are desperately trying to fit in with the hip hop scene or look "cool" feel the need to spend money that they do not have on things that "Rappers" make them think they need. It is teaching our youth that there is one answer to all the questions and problems in life, money.

[1] http://www.apa.org/monitor/jun04/driving.aspx, Allen Kanner, PhD; American Pyscological  Association, Driving teen egos--and buying--through 'branding',A glut of marketing messages encourages teens to tie brand choices to their personal identity. June 2004, Vol 35, No. 6

[2] LiL Wayne, Tha Carter III, Universal Media

World Wide Shopping

Shopping Made Easy

Everyday millions of Americans shop in everyway possible.  Today customers can shop at stores, online, over the phone, off their phone, they can shop in malls and now they even have outlet malls.  The ability to shop and spend money is available and encouraged in every facet of our lives.  Blaszczyk clearly illustrates the evolution of the means of shopping in her book.  Earlier in class we read about the small shops and peddlers that paved the way for the stores we shop at today and have many more ways to access these goods.  Blaszczyk states, “… cities witnessed the birth and growth of these suave stores, which transformed the downtowns and made shopping into a fashionable pursuit (Blaszczyk 77).”  Starting out that people had to leave the house in order to purchase things slowly evolved into, giving money to the mailman to have your purchases dropped off at the house, now Americans are able to lay in bed and spend thousands of dollars and have them dropped off at their doorstep.  With all of the advertising on the streets and item placements in television and movies in addition to the accessibility of goods ready to be purchased makes it nearly impossible for Americans to not grab their credit cards and order away.

Reading this journal, “An Analysis of Factors Affecting on Online Shopping Behavior of Consumers,” by Mohammad Hossein Moshref Javadi, Hossein Rezaei Dolatabadi, Mojtaba Nourbakhsh, Amir Poursaeedi, and Ahmad Reza Asadollahi, I took in a lot of information on why people spend so much time shopping online.  “Compared to physical stores, online stores have many advantages: They are convenient and time saving and no more traveling and waiting in lines is needed. They are open in all time and they are accessible anytime and anywhere (An Analysis of Factors Affecting on Online Shopping Behavior of Consumers 83).”  With all of this convenience and accessibility at our fingertips, how would the United States be different if we still had to go to stores and shop?  Thinking more into it what else could evolve and change in the way we shop? In movies people have things materialize right in front of them out of thin air.  What do you believe will be the next step in consumerism?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kugv8UQ1hWU

Blaszczyk, Regina Lee. American Consumer Society, 1865-2005: From Hearth to HDTV. Wheeling, IL: Harlan Davidson, 2009. Print.

Moshref Javadi, M., Dolatabadi, H., Nourbakhsh, M., Poursaeedi, A., & Asadollahi, A. (2012). An Analysis of Factors Affecting on Online Shopping Behavior of Consumers. International Journal Of Marketing Studies, 4 (5), 81-98,. Doi:10.5539/ijms.v4n5p81

                                      

--Taylor Williams

Victorian America

          In the late 1800’s and early 1900’s on one side of the Atlantic Ocean there was a big uprising about the Victoria Era. Since America was still kind following the trends from England, America was not too far behind England with their fashion icons.

            We all know about the Victorian Era and how it came to be about. It all mainly focuses on Queen Victoria herself. You can drive around older towns and cities and see the works of this Era. You can just drive around Hamilton and you can see these big beautiful “Victorian” homes. Those were the style back then. Also another thing that was in style were the clothes they wore.

 

Women in the Victoria Ear wore big, colorful dresses. The men wore silk suit s and big top hats. It was all about impressing someone. The bigger and more colorful your dress, the more men you could get or you could attract. Same thing for men, the more silk or the nicer your suit looked, the more ladies you could get. These are the type of clothes that they would wear back then.

          In this time period people also went out of their way to buy nice things to impress people. Things that they did not really need, but again it was all bought just so other people would like them. 

 The same thing is going on in the present. People buy nice clothes to impress the opposite sex. They buy nice items that they only have just to impress people. The items and clothing might be different, but it is the same idea.

 Again going back to what I just stated about all the items then and now are different yes, but it is the same idea. Like the dresses, the male clothes, and the random items like iPhones.

·         http://books.google.com/books?id=PCX90VYcj-UC&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=victorian+era+consumer+culture&source=bl&ots=94ALOt1tIf&sig=uQ1sENMD7KKAf-jMRwM_XyPShRc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=smAEUdvQCcqhyAHkpoGgAQ&sqi=2&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=victorian%20era%20consumer%20culture&f=false

--Jasmine Osman