Ok, I ultimately decided to use the edits you made on KalliopeKefallinosRevisedPaper to make edits on this page. The multiple pages made it more confusing for me to track changes. If you have additional suggestions, please make them on this page.

-- KalliopeKefallinos - 04 Jul 2010

Thank you for your re-write. I will make my final changes within the next couple of days on the other document page you made, "KalliopeKefallinosRevisedPaper." My only immediate response is that I'm a bit confused--in your earlier comments you stated that I was making sweeping conclusions and needed more statistics/ facts, but in your revision, you went on to eliminate all but one of my sources. Did you read the different articles and find the facts laid out therein useless or superfluous?

-- KalliopeKefallinos - 20 Jun 2010

The Conspicuous Consumption of Food and Babies - REVISED

I plan to use Veblen’s theory of conspicuous consumption and waste to locate what I take to be the problems central to two of the present day's largest "pro-world" phenomena, the organic food and international adoption movements. I will then propose de-objectification as a possible step in an alleviating direction for both cases. Organic Food Movement Environmental sociologist Gill Seyfang distinguishes between multiple perspectives towards organic food, one of which she calls the "hierarchist" approach. Hierarchists buy organic products as a way to signal to others that they "[have] the good sense and discrimination (and wealth) to choose high quality food with a premium price tag." This perhaps explain why smartly dressed men and women file into Whole Foods in the middle of the winter to fill their reusable bags with organic avocados shipped in from Mexico at $2.49 each. Veblen argues that through a psychological process of emulation, lower classes emulate the consumption patterns of higher classes. Assuming emulation carries over into food, the lower classes should be following the lead of the higher classes and buying organic, even if doing so requires them to spend beyond their means. And yet, this has not been the case. Veblen would likely say that the lower classes are trying to maximize the status-giving potential of their limited resources, and that food, being less visible than bling or a BMW, is simply not the most waste-efficient choice. Now, if the goal of the organic movement is simply to promote "Slow Food," then perhaps treating organic food like an Hermes Birkin handbag is permissible. If the goal, however, is to change all Americans’ eating habits for the better, the organic movement as currently practiced cannot be the answer. Currently, only a subset of Americans choose to opt for the more expensive, supposedly higher quality organic food. It remains doubtful that such consumption actually leads to better health, and more importantly, lower and middle class Americans are making food purchasing choices that reflect a desire to maximize their “Waste-efficiency” rather than simply maximizing their health. The organic movement continues to gain popularity, and yet, it is doubtful that anyone is actually eating any healthier. International Adoption Movement The second phenomenon I want to present through the eyes of Veblen is the current international adoption movement. In recent years, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of international adoptions in the U.S., from approximately 6,000 children in 1994 to over 20,000 in 2005. Adopting a child from abroad attracts the same hierarchists as the organic food movement—that is, members of the American higher classes eager to display their "good sense." A woman on the UES juggling a Birkin in one hand and a Cambodian child on the other, for example, is sending the subtle signal that she cares enough (and has enough money) to save the world’s children. As philanthropic as this trend might seem, it actually runs counter to the goals of finding homes for orphans. The majority of children in need, both domestically and abroad, are being sidelined for the physical and psychological “defects” resulting from the neglect of their circumstance, as eager Angelinas wait in line to scoop up the few untarnished babies. Wealthy Americans are essentially using weak countries as baby factories—instead of adopting the children that are available, they demand a subset of newborns from out of the country. This demand is creating a new market, where poor families have an incentive to give up healthy newborns for money. Of course, Veblen would say this is predictable, at least insofar as it is certainly more wasteful to demand a new supply of healthy newborns than to simply adopt the supply already available. If the goal of adoption is to find families for children, perhaps this conspicuous consumption aspect of international adoption would be permissible—emulation could lead to more adoptions which would translate into more children saved. The problem is that the goal of international adoption as practiced today has shifted to finding children for families. Specifically, the market for international adoption is primarily for healthy newborns. The newborn has becomes an object of commerce for the psychological benefit of the wealthy American, and the actual orphans (both domestically and abroad) are for the most part being left behind for newborns. Because of this trend, emulation by the lower classes would most likely run counter to the traditional goals of adoption. De-Objectification Thus far, I have attempted to use Veblen to expose what I take to be the underlying problems in two current social phenomena, the organic food and international adoption movements. Initially, the fact that the two cases can be understood as forms of conspicuous consumption seems to open up the possibility of positive change—the higher classes are engaging in a type of conduct, the emulation of which would appear to promote the greater good in the long-run: more people eating organic food, and more orphans finding homes. Unfortunately, this is not true in either case. The lower classes are not eating healthier, and the children in most need of being adopted are being left behind in favor of healthy newborns. One solution to the problems posed by these two forms of conspicuous consumption might be to de-objectify food and children through education. For example, in food education, we could focus more on teaching people to truly care about what they eating, where it comes from, and how it is produced. As for children, we could focus on exposing the underlying reality which is making international adoption such a booming market—the socioeconomic and political tensions between the powerful and the vulnerable, the rich and the poor, the West and the Third World. Surely we would find that it is not just the children of these countries who are being treated as mere instruments or vehicles for conspicuous consumption and its resulting waste.

-- JessicaGuzik - 19 Jun 2010

Yeah, I tried to use Veblen as a lens and propose my own solution. I think de-objectification is a good solution, and it seems like the only way to get that to happen would be through re-educating people how to think about what they eat. I also think wealthy Americans should stop using weak countries as baby factories-- either adopt the children that are available or don't adopt at all. The demand is creating a new market, where poor families have an incentive to give up healthy newborns for money-- does this seem OK to you? Besides education, do you have any ideas?

This last tirade of mine connects to the positive effects point you make. I don't think there are any positive effects which would justify the system as is. The child becomes an object of commerce for the psychological benefit of wealthy Americans. The actual orphans (both domestically and abroad) are for the most part being left behind for newborns. What's happening is the perpetuation of America's subjugation of countries like Ethiopia. There is no "right" to have a family.

-- KalliopeKefallinos - 23 Apr 2010

Ok, I see what you're saying. And knowing that and looking back at the essay (I'm still just staying in the first part) it makes more sense. I think you need more words to explain this idea though, so that your reader doesn't lose your train of thought. You have many concepts packed into a few short paragraphs.

I'll look at this some more, but I think I remember in class you asked Moglen what we do about veblen's point (ie, how do we fix it) and he said the point isn't to try to fix it, but to see it is another way of thinking. Do you believe we can fix this problem merely by educating people? In the end of the day, people will do what they want, and the idea of freedom to choose is central to capitalism. People will make the wrong decisions, this is inevitable...do you think it's up to the more rational, informed people of world to "fix" it?

Also, what the about the positive effects of the conspicuous consumption of babies? Just a thought.

I'll continue this! I'm just throwing things out there.

-- JessicaGuzik - 22 Apr 2010

Hi! I just happened to read over this, so I thought I'd respond to some of your comments so I can get your feedback on them. Regarding the organic food movement, my whole point is that the goal of the movement as practiced does not support people eating healthier. It supports all this economic stuff you've laid out. I am saying, IF that was the goal, then something is very wrong. (And I am using Veblen to expose one way to conceive of that wrong.) I think if you asked the average person what the goals of the movement are, the primary one would be people eating better. (This point along with environmental concerns were the main goals of the hippies who started the movement in the 70s.)

You're same economic argument would seem to also apply in the adoption case, to which I would give the same response. My analysis is multi-discplinary-- and while there is an economic argument, that's not what I'm trying to expose. Does this make sense?

-- KalliopeKefallinos - 22 Apr 2010

Have you read The Undercover Economist? It discusses price discrimination in grocery stores extensively, and i think youw ould enjoy it if you are interested in why the upper classes are buying these avocados and how whole foods gets them to do it. In fact, I believe the author actually talks about whole foods. I think you would like it, and I think it would help this essay.

What an interesting essay. I just wrote a long comment, and it got deleted because I wasn't logged into the Wiki. I'll try to recreate it.

First, I think this essay would benefit from becoming two essays so that it's more cohesive as a piece of writing and because I think you can't do each issue justice in < 500 words.

I have barely any criticisms of the writing....you write well and your ideas are easy to follow.

I think you need some statistics to back up some of your points, because your conclusions about organic food consumption and baby adoption seem to be drawn based on many sweeping conclusions. For example, the article you use to support your point about adoption is only talking about a subset of adopters who try to exchange their adopted children for "better" ones. In order to make this point convincing, we really need to know what percent of people adopt.

I think I'll go through this and let you know which parts I think need to be changed. I think you could easily devote the entire 1000 words to organic food consumption, if you want to.

-- JessicaGuzik - 22 Apr 2010

sorry typo....*we need to know what percent of people who adopt exchange their babies for new ones.*

-- JessicaGuzik - 22 Apr 2010

On my second reading of this, I figured out the problem I have with the part on organic foods. You idetify two different problems, but they get tangled up into one.

First, people use food as a status symbol. Second, people aren't eating healthier. Once again, I don't think the second issue is worth discussing (see my comment in the essay) I don't believe thatt he health benefits of organic food are proportional to the increased cost....so I therefore don't think the healthy food solution had any potential to come from the organic movement.

-- JessicaGuzik - 22 Apr 2010

point taken. i thought it made it easier to read haha

-- KalliopeKefallinos - 16 Apr 2010

-- DevinMcDougall - 16 Apr 2010

The Conspicuous Consumption of Food and Babies

Organic Food Movement

International Adoption Movement

De-Objectification

i appreciate all criticism. seriously.

-- KalliopeKefallinos - 16 Apr 2010

<--/commentPlugin-->

something about food and babies

-- By KalliopeKefallinos - 15 Apr 2010

Section I

Subsection A

Subsub 1

Subsection B

Subsub 1

Subsub 2

Section II

Subsection A

Subsection B

# * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, KalliopeKefallinos

Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of that line. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated list