- Possible paper topic: environmentalism and conspicuous consumption - the reality of a movement that wants people to consume less, but may only survive by relying on its own brand of consumption -- AmandaHungerford - 26 Mar 2008

Want to talk about paper ideas? Umm, we'll figure something out?

There's not enough here to inspire any particular kind of comments. But since you used the word "consume" a lot, it reminded me of a question from class today, which is, How do you identify "waste"? I think (unfortunately) that a big factor is when OTHER people think someone else doesn't have "enough" of that thing. But then, what's "enough," after all? I don't want to fall into the trap of using "wasteful" to describe others, when I really should be calling myself "jealous." [One man's conspicuous consumption is another man's private grudge.]

My assumption was that the function of conspicious Wastefulness, since it's a sign of power, sends a signal, "You should be my friend." But that feels mutually exclusive with its creating jealousy -- "I am your enemy; rob me." Uggh. Is it?

AndrewGradman - 27 Mar 2008

This is an interesting idea Amanda. I'm curious what kind of insights you might come up with by framing the ethos of the environmental movement in the context of Veblen's theory. Like, maybe it's not really about consuming less at all. Environmentalists are conspicuous in their own right; it's seems like green appliances and shade-grown coffee have become status symbols of a sort. I think you're very right that the movement may just be a repackaged brand of conspicuous consumption. I wonder what that means about the future of environmentalism, or how it will affect its ostensible goals? Anyway, sorry for sort of rambling, but yeah, I think this is a great idea and I'm really interested to see where you take it.

-- JuliaS - 27 Mar 2008

Amanda, I'm curious as to whether Julia is accurately restating your idea as "the movement may just be a repackaged brand of conspicuous consumption." If not, I apologize for getting this Veblen skepticism off my chest on your paper page and I definitely look forward to reading your take.

"Green" is definitely fashionable lately, but that's a broad brush with which to tar the environmental movement. There are certainly still (less commercially-successful) parts of the movement which don't emit clouds of smug.

More broadly: Veblen is bombastic and exciting to read, but once he's brought out the shiny hammers of conspicuous leisure and consumption everything starts to look like a nail. This isn't exactly an original thought.

Maybe the environmental movement, in general, if there is such a thing, is just an environmental movement. Maybe there's self-interest or at least self-congratulation at work, on some level, but we already buried that discussion.

Maybe (at least some) higher learning is for the sake of learning, for the sake of gaining a qualification, or for some other less exciting purpose than showing off.

As I read your possible topic, though, the environmental movement itself isn't necessarily a conspicuous anything, but it might thrive only because of its attachment to conspicuous new offices and Priuses and fair-trade venti soy lattes.

-- DanielHarris - 27 Mar 2008

Hi All,

Sorry I wasn't more specific earlier, I just jotted the above down as a note to myself between classes so I didn't forget what I was thinking by the end of Con Law.

More specifically: Based on our class discussion yesterday, I was thinking about trying to use Veblen to analyze the "successes" and "failures" of the environmental movement (although I share Daniel's concerns about the dangers of applying Veblen to every situation).

Based on my (admittedly limited) knowledge of the environmental movement, environmental concerns reached widespread popular knowledge in the sixties with Silent Spring. Despite that, environmentalism remained a fringe movement until recently, when suddenly it's very cool to be "Green." So what changed? Sure, the environment is rapidly deteriorating, but it was fifty years ago, too. I think one explanation is that environmentalism has recently become consumable. You can pay double for your organic food and your free-trade coffee, signalling to others both moral superiority and economic superiority.

Possible places I might go with this: - Look at how conspicuous this consumption might be. E.g., Do people buy recycled envelopes, or recycled envelopes with "made from recycled paper!" written on the back. - Should the environmental movement embrace this phenomenon? Isn't a large goal of the environmental movement getting people to consume less? In order to be successful, should it try to get people to consume, not less, but differently? - How does this tie into Veblen's ideas about who reacts to change (the middle class) and who resists (the upper and lower classes)? Who is willing to pay more to be green? - Perhaps tie this back to Veblen's discussion of charitable donations, although that might be biting off more than I can chew.

While writing this paper, I also want to keep in mind the fact that the environmental movement is not a unified movement (by any means), and that in a lot of areas it's not even environmentalists who are pushing Green products. Clorox is coming out with a new line of "green" products, but I don't think anyone will accuse them of loving the earth.

Thanks for all the comments. If anyone else has ideas with where I can go with this, or criticisms of the places I'm thinking about going, I'd welcome all comments. Also, you all should know that I consider myself an environmental activist (whatever that means), so let me know if I'm not keeping my biases in check.

-- AmandaHungerford - 27 Mar 2008

This Time Magazine article, "The Clean Energy Scam," is somewhat tangential, but it reminded me of your paper topic. The demand for farm-grown fuels, it seems, is beginning to have negative environmental impacts.

-- JuliaS - 31 Mar 2008