|
KalliopeKefallinosSecondPaper 8 - 22 Apr 2010 - Main.JessicaGuzik
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
The Conspicuous Consumption of Food and Babies | | | 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 | |
>
> |
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 | | |
# * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, KalliopeKefallinos |
|
|
KalliopeKefallinosSecondPaper 7 - 22 Apr 2010 - Main.KalliopeKefallinos
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
The Conspicuous Consumption of Food and Babies | | | 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 | |
>
> |
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 | | |
# * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, KalliopeKefallinos |
|
|
KalliopeKefallinosSecondPaper 6 - 22 Apr 2010 - Main.JessicaGuzik
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
The Conspicuous Consumption of Food and Babies | | | 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. After all, the Birkin is made of the finest quality leather by skilled craftsmen using traditional leather-working methods. If the goal, however, is rather to change all Americans’ eating habits for the better, the organic movement as currently practiced cannot be the answer. | |
>
> | My problem with this is that I don't believe the goal of the organic movement is to get Americans to eat better. In fact, I wouldn't even classify it as a movement. It's a business mechanism that gives grocery stores another way to price discriminate. So, I do think the organic movement is acheiving its "goal." I don't think suppliers of organic food care whether or not people are healthier. They care about profits. I think you might be able to make a stronger argument if you go into more detail and consider whether the movement is truly designed to better peoples' health. If that was the goal, than the healthier food should be accessible to members of all classes. I don't think the organic movement it trying to make the lower classes healthier by having them overpay (with money they don't have) on "better" produce. In fact, the additional cost of organic food probably doesn't mirror it's marginal health benefits. For example, organic produce typically costs 200% more. If someone on a budget decided to forgo going organic and use the $1 saved on every avocado to buy one more unit of say, salmon instead of red meat, they would probably be better off.
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. | | | International Adoption Movement
The second phenomenon I want to present through the eyes of Veblen is the current international adoption movement. Historian Kirstin Lovelock writes that, initially, international adoption emerged as a humanitarian response to the world's war-bedraggled children. The first transnational adoptees were the displaced children of Europe during and after World War II. 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. These children are coming predominantly from China, Ethiopia, Russia, and South Korea. | | | point taken. i thought it made it easier to read haha
-- KalliopeKefallinos - 16 Apr 2010 | |
>
> |
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 | | |
# * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, KalliopeKefallinos |
|
|
KalliopeKefallinosSecondPaper 5 - 16 Apr 2010 - Main.KalliopeKefallinos
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
The Conspicuous Consumption of Food and Babies | | | Organic Food Movement | |
<
< | Environmental sociologist Gill Seyfang distinguishes between three perspectives towards organic food, one of which she calls the "hierarchist" approach. Hierarchists buy organic 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." And so, 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. | >
> | Environmental sociologist Gill Seyfang distinguishes between three perspectives towards organic food, one of which she calls the "hierarchist" approach. Hierarchists buy organic 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." And so, 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. After all, the Birkin is made of the finest quality leather by skilled craftsmen using traditional leather-working methods. If the goal, however, is rather to change all Americans’ eating habits for the better, the organic movement as currently practiced cannot be the answer. | >
> | 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. After all, the Birkin is made of the finest quality leather by skilled craftsmen using traditional leather-working methods. If the goal, however, is rather to change all Americans’ eating habits for the better, the organic movement as currently practiced cannot be the answer. | | | International Adoption Movement
The second phenomenon I want to present through the eyes of Veblen is the current international adoption movement. Historian Kirstin Lovelock writes that, initially, international adoption emerged as a humanitarian response to the world's war-bedraggled children. The first transnational adoptees were the displaced children of Europe during and after World War II. 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. These children are coming predominantly from China, Ethiopia, Russia, and South Korea. | |
<
< | Veblen would say international adoption has become a new form of conspicuous consumption. 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. After all, adopting internationally is very expensive, usually starting at $15,000 in initial fees plus the costs of actually raising a child. | >
> | Veblen would say international adoption has become a new form of conspicuous consumption. 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. After all, adopting internationally is very expensive, usually starting at $15,000 in initial fees plus the costs of actually raising a child. | | | | |
<
< | If the goal of adoption is to find families for children, perhaps this conspicuous consumption aspect of international adoption would be permissible—emulation will lead to more adoptions which should 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. | >
> | If the goal of adoption is to find families for children, perhaps this conspicuous consumption aspect of international adoption would be permissible—emulation will lead to more adoptions which should 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. | | | | |
<
< | Anthropologist Gail Landsman compares the current movement to the car industry, saying that potential adopters do not want “lemons,” that they refuse to “[invest] in what is publicly perceived as a defective commodity.” In fact, sociologist Sara Dorow writes how disappointed adopters sometimes bring “wrongful adoption” suits, choose “to ‘switch’ to a more desirable—healthier or cuter or younger—child” or to return the child altogether and “get their money back.” In short, it follows that the majority of children in need, both domestically and abroad, are been 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. And yet, 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. | >
> | Anthropologist Gail Landsman compares the current movement to the car industry, saying that potential adopters do not want “lemons,” that they refuse to “[invest] in what is publicly perceived as a defective commodity.” In fact, sociologist Sara Dorow writes how disappointed adopters sometimes bring “wrongful adoption” suits, choose “to ‘switch’ to a more desirable—healthier or cuter or younger—child” or to return the child altogether and “get their money back.” In short, it follows that the majority of children in need, both domestically and abroad, are been 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. And yet, 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. | | | 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 be a good thing—the higher classes are engaging in conduct, the emulation of which would appear to promote the greater good in the long-run. More people eating organic food, more orphans finding homes. Unfortunately, this is not ultimately true in either case. The lower classes are not eating healthier, and the children in most need of being adopted are being left behind. | |
<
< | One solution to the problems posed by these two forms of conspicuous consumption might be to de-objectify food and children. For example, in food education, we could focus more on teaching people to treat food as a good in itself, not merely something snatched off the supermarket shelf to stave off hunger. If Americans are taught to truly care about what they eating, where it comes from, how it is produced, etc., they will be more likely to eat healthy and not abuse food, organic or not. 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 forms of waste. | >
> | One solution to the problems posed by these two forms of conspicuous consumption might be to de-objectify food and children. For example, in food education, we could focus more on teaching people to treat food as a good in itself, not merely something snatched off the supermarket shelf to stave off hunger. If Americans are taught to truly care about what they eating, where it comes from, how it is produced, etc., they will be more likely to eat healthy and not abuse food, organic or not. 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 forms of waste. | | |
Dorow, Sara K. 2006. Transnational Adoption: A Cultural Economy of Race, Gender, and Kinship. New York: New York University Press. | | | -- DevinMcDougall - 16 Apr 2010 | |
>
> |
point taken. i thought it made it easier to read haha
-- KalliopeKefallinos - 16 Apr 2010 | | |
# * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, KalliopeKefallinos |
|
|
KalliopeKefallinosSecondPaper 4 - 16 Apr 2010 - Main.KalliopeKefallinos
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
The Conspicuous Consumption of Food and Babies | | | Environmental sociologist Gill Seyfang distinguishes between three perspectives towards organic food, one of which she calls the "hierarchist" approach. Hierarchists buy organic 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." And so, 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 carried 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. | >
> | 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 looking at organic food like an Hermes Birkin handbag is permissible. After all, the Birkin is made of the finest quality leather by skilled craftsmen using traditional leather-working methods. If the goal, however, is rather to change all Americans’ eating habits for the better, the organic movement as currently practiced cannot be the answer. | >
> | 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. After all, the Birkin is made of the finest quality leather by skilled craftsmen using traditional leather-working methods. If the goal, however, is rather to change all Americans’ eating habits for the better, the organic movement as currently practiced cannot be the answer. | | | International Adoption Movement | |
<
< | The second phenomenon I want to present through the eyes of Veblen is the problem posed by the current international adoption movement. Historian Kirstin Lovelock writes that, initially, international adoption emerged as a humanitarian response to the world’s displaced children. The first transnational adoptees were the displaced children of Europe during and after World War II. 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. These children are coming predominantly from China, Ethiopia, Russia, and South Korea. | >
> | The second phenomenon I want to present through the eyes of Veblen is the current international adoption movement. Historian Kirstin Lovelock writes that, initially, international adoption emerged as a humanitarian response to the world's war-bedraggled children. The first transnational adoptees were the displaced children of Europe during and after World War II. 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. These children are coming predominantly from China, Ethiopia, Russia, and South Korea. | | | Veblen would say international adoption has become a new form of conspicuous consumption. 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. After all, adopting internationally is very expensive, usually starting at $15,000 in initial fees plus the costs of actually raising a child. |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|