The Conspicuous Consumption of Food and Babies

-- By KalliopeKefallinos - 15 Apr 2010

I plan to use Veblen 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 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.

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.

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.

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.

Dorow, Sara K. 2006. Transnational Adoption: A Cultural Economy of Race, Gender, and Kinship. New York: New York University Press.

Landsman, Gail. 2004. “Too Bad You Got a Lemon.” In Consuming Motherhood, edited by L. Layne, J. Taylor and D.F. Wozniak. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, pp.100-21.

i appreciate all criticism. seriously.

-- KalliopeKefallinos - 16 Apr 2010

Very interesting paper. On a technical level though - as a reader, I find the transitions from bolded to unbolded text distracting. One thing you might try, if you want to highlight those lines, is make them the topic sentences of the paragraphs they are in.

-- DevinMcDougall - 16 Apr 2010

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

-- KalliopeKefallinos - 16 Apr 2010

# * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, KalliopeKefallinos