From Modernity to Post-Modernity

Posted on April 9, 2016by Karl Thompson

In order to understand what post-modernity is, one has to understand what modernity,
or modern society was! Somewhat confusingly ‘modern society’ refers to European
society between roughly 1650- 1950 (ish) and post-modern society refers to European
and many other ‘advanced’ ‘post-industrial’ societies from around 1950 (ish) onwards.
Post-Modernists argue that post-modern society is different to modern society, so much
so that it requires new methods of study and new theoretical frameworks. Essentially,
what is different, according to Post-Modernists, is that those stable institutions which
used to bind us together have much less influence now, and with the rise of
globalisation and New Media technologies, individuals are much more free to construct
their culture and identity that they once were. Sociologists disagree as to exactly when
post-modernism started. For some, the roots of it lie in early modernity, for others, post-
modernism does not properly begin until the 1970s, still others argue (Giddens) that we
don’t even live in a post-modern society at all!
Now it’s important for you to get your head around what post-modern society is,
because theorists of post-modernity argue that the traditional structuralist theories of
Marxism and feminism are no longer relevant and suggest new ways of ‘doing
sociology’.
In order to understand what post-modern society is, one has to understand what
modern society was
What was (is?) modernity?
Modernity is the term used by sociologists to describe the “modern” period which began
in Europe several hundred years ago. Some of the key features of modern societies
are:
 Economic production is industrial and capitalist, with social class as the main
form of social division. Social classes are based on people’s social and economic
position. Marx’s view for instance, was that industrial society people were divided
into two main classes, those who owned businesses and those who sold their labour
to them.

The Fordist Factory – Industrialist and with Clear Social Class Divisions

 The growth of cities, or urbanisation. During the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries
thousands of people moved to cities to find work and make their homes.
 Urbanisation – The growth of cities was a key process of modernity

 A powerful central government and administration, known as a bureaucratic

state. Local and central government have played an ever increasing part in our lives,
the development of compulsory education, public housing and the welfare state for
example.
 Many of these nations regulated people’s lives and developed welfare systems of some sort during the modern period

 People’s knowledge is derived from scientific and rational thinking rather than
religious faith, magic or superstition. During this period people have looked to
science and logical thinking to explain the world. Natural disasters such as
earthquakes, for example, have tended to be explained scientifically rather than as
an “act of god”.

The Moon landing – probably the pinnacle of the modernist idea of scientific progress

 A widely held faith in scientifically based progress. An associated view has been
that the more we trust in science and technological progress, the better our society
will be.

Most of the “great” sociologists have attempted to find ways of understanding

“modernity” and the “great transformation” which created it. Writers such as Marx and
Durkheim attempted to create theories and concepts which could help explain the
workings of societies and answer basic questions such as “what holds societies
together?” and “what makes societies change?”
 What is Postmodernity?
Post-Modernity refers to the view that the institutions and ways of living characteristic
of Modernity have been replaced to such a profound extent that our society is
fundamentally different to the ‘modern’ society. In contrast post-modernism is a term
that refers to new ways of thinking about thought. Post-modernists believe that
knowledge itself needs to be understood in a different way to modernists sociologists
such as Functionalists and Marxists. It follows that not all theorists of post-modernity
are post-modernists.
Five Key features of the post-modern society
1. Globalisation
2. The Media
3. A world in Fragments (due to Dynamism: Rapid social change)
4. Consumer society: Individual freedom to choose one’s lifestyle
5. Cultural diversity and hybridity
1. Globalisation
A simple definition of Globalisation is the increasing connectedness between societies
across the globe. Globalisation means there are more flows of information and ideas,
money, and people moving across national boundaries.

2. The increasing importance of the mass media

The post-modern era has witnessed a huge expansion in media technology. The rise of
digital media, especially the internet, has lead to a massive and unprecedented
increase in the number of people using the media; a huge increase in the diversity of
media products both factual and fictional; an increase in the number of people creating
their own music, videos, profile sites and uploading them for public consumption,
greater interactivity, more flexibility. All of this results in much more complex patterns of
media usage, more picking and mixing
One consequence of this is that our society has an increased reliance on the media to
tell us what is going on in the world. Some sociologists argue that the media creates
something called ‘hyper reality’ where what we see in the media is different yet more
real than reality. Baudrillard argues that the media coverage of war for example is
different to reality, yet is the only reality most of us know.
New networks also emerge through the use of media, most obviously through profile
sites such as Facebook. One consequence of this is the breakdown of local
communities, as people increasingly network online in the privacy of their own homes,
and don’t communicate with their next door neighbours.

Hyperreality – Is the virtual world more real than reality?

3. A world in fragments
In post-modern society, the pace of change is much more rapid than in modern society.
Post-modern society is thus more dynamic, more fluid if you like. The post-modern
society doesn’t sit still, it is like a fidgeting child, and as a result, it lacks any coherent,
stable social structure. This can be evidenced in the following areas:
Work: Gone are the days of a ‘Job for Life’, today is the era of the ‘portfolio
worker’ who is much more likely to move jobs and change career several times
throughout his or her working life. Working life is also characterised by much more
uncertainty as businesses are quick to move to other regions or countries if they can
find cheaper labour abroad. One very good illustrative example of this is Dyson, which
recently closed down a factory in South Wales to seek cheaper labour in China. From
the perspective of the South Wales workers, Dyson came and went in a very short time
frame. Also, companies are now increasingly likely to employ workers through
recruitment agencies which can fire at short notice, and much work is temporary, part
time and characterised by flexible working hours. There are of course good sides and
bad sides to all of this, but the upshot is that working life is much less stable than it
used to be. See Richard Sennet: The Corrossion of Character chapter 1 and Polly
Toynbe: Hard Work for an insight into the post-modern world of work.
Fashion and Music: Two of the most visible examples of the fast pace of change lies
in the fashion and music industries, which are constantly evolving with new styles and
musical forms constantly emerging, and with many artists having to continually reinvent
themselves to stay in the spotlight. At the extreme end of this, the pop-idol genre of
shows demonstrates how individuals are made stars for a month and then forgotten.
The breakdown of local communities: The increased flexibility of labour associated
with the world of work means people move more often in their lifetimes, meaning that
people are much less able to put down sable roots in their local communities. This has
lead to a decline in ‘social capital’ (pretty much like trust) according to Robert Putnam.
Look him up on Google, go on, you know you want to. Do something different instead of
wasting your time surfing for information on…

Postmodern society is a network society, with a complex ‘structure’, if any structure at all!

4. The Consumer society

According to post-modernists one Fundamental difference between the post-modern
society and modern society is that our society is consumer oriented, rather than work
oriented. This means that consuming things, and leisure activities are more important
today than work. The image of the post-modern society is thus one of a shopping mall,
rather than a factory.
Post modernists argue that we live in a ‘Pick and mix’ society. Individuals today are
free to pick their lifestyle and life course, from a wider range of options than ever before,
just as if they were picking and choosing products in a super market! Importantly, post
modernists argue that individuals are much less shaped by their class, gender and
ethnic backgrounds today. Women, for example, are not expected to become
housewives and mothers, just because they are women and work is much less
gendered than it used to be. Society is no longer divided along class lines, or gender
lines, or even ethnic lines. Being born working class, being born a woman, or being
born black, does not, according to post-modernists, pre-determine one’s future, or
shape one’s consciousness (identity) as it did in modernity (and the extent to which it
did was often exaggerated by the classical sociologists).

Postmodern society – a society of consumers

5. Cultural diversity and hybridity

The ever increasing pace of globalisation has lead to an increase in cultural diversity
and‘hybridity’, which refers to the mixing of different cultural traditions. If we compare
society today to that of 100 or even 50 years ago we see a bewildering increase in the
diversity of social and cultural forms. Some of the more obvious examples include:
 Goods and services: A simple trip to the supermarket or shopping mall reveals a
huge range of products one can buy, and the same is true of services.
 Fashion and Music: Once again, one can spend several hours in a week simply
choosing what to buy or wear, or sorting MP3s on one’s MP3 player (once you’ve
chosen one of those course!)
 Pretty much every other sphere of life is more diverse than it was 50 years ago:
Education, work, family life…..

Consumerism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not to be confused with Consumerization or Consumption (economics).
For the similarly named blog, see Consumerist.
See also: Consumer movement

An electronics store in a shopping mall in Jakarta (2004)

 

Consumerism is a social and economic order and ideology that encourages the acquisition of goods and
services in ever-increasing amounts. With the industrial revolution, but particularly in the 20th century, mass
production led to an economic crisis: there was overproduction — the supply of goods would grow beyond
consumer demand, and so manufacturers turned to planned obsolescence and advertising to increase consumer
spending.[1] An early criticism of consumerism is Thorstein Veblen's best known book, The Theory of the Leisure
Class from 1899, which critically examined newly widespread values and economic institutions emerging along
with newly widespread "leisure time," at the turn of the 20th century.[2] In it Veblen "views the activities and
spending habits of this leisure class in terms of conspicuous and vicarious consumption and waste. Both are
related to the display of status and not to functionality or usefulness."[3]
In economics, "consumerism" may refer to economic policies which emphasise consumption. In an abstract
sense, it is the consideration that the free choice of consumers should strongly orient the choice by
manufacturers of what is produced and how, and therefore orient the economic organization of a society
(compare producerism, especially in the British sense of the term).[4] In this sense, consumerism expresses the
idea not of "one man, one voice", but of "one dollar, one voice", which may or may not reflect the contribution of
people to society.
 In the almost complete absence of other sustained macro-political and social narratives — concern about
“ global climate change notwithstanding — the pursuit of the 'good life' through practices of what is known
as 'consumerism' has become one of the dominant global social forces, cutting across differences of
religion, class, gender, ethnicity and nationality. It is the other side of the dominant ideology of market
globalism and is central to what Manfred Steger calls the 'global imaginary'.[5] ”
Contents
[hide]

 1Term
 2History
o 2.1Origins
o 2.2Culture of consumption
o 2.3Mass-production
o 2.4In the 21st century
 3Criticism
o 3.1Overview
o 3.2Consumerism as cultural ideology
 4See also
o 4.1Consumerism and anti-consumerism in popular culture
 5References
 6External links

Term[edit]
The term "consumerism" has several definitions.[6] These definitions may not be related to each other and
confusingly, they conflict with each other.

1. One sense of the term relates to efforts to support consumers' interests.[6] By the early 1970s it had
become the accepted term for the field and began to be used in these ways:[6]
1. "Consumerism" is the concept that consumers should be informed decision makers in the
marketplace.[6] Practices such as product testing make consumers informed.
2. "Consumerism" is the concept that the marketplace itself is responsible for ensuring social
justice through fair economic practices.[6] Consumer protection policies and laws compel
manufacturers to make products safe.
3. "Consumerism" refers to the field of studying, regulating, or interacting with the
marketplace.[6] The consumer movement is the social movement which refers to all actions and
all entities within the marketplace which give consideration to the consumer.
2. While the above definitions were becoming established, other people began using the term
"consumerism" to mean "high levels of consumption".[6] This definition has gained popularity since the
1970s and began to be used in these ways:
1. "Consumerism" is the selfish and frivolous collecting of products, or economic materialism. In
protest against this, some people[who?] promote "anti-consumerism" and advocate simple living.[6]
2. "Consumerism" is a force from the marketplace which destroys individuality and harms
society.[6] It is related to globalization and in protest against this some people promote the "anti-
globalization movement".[7]
In a 1955 speech, John Bugas (number two at the Ford Motor Company) coined the term "consumerism" as a
substitute for "capitalism" to better describe the American economy:[8]

The term "consumerism" would pin the tag where it actually belongs — on Mr. Consumer, the real boss
“ and beneficiary of the American system. It would pull the rug right out from under our unfriendly critics
who have blasted away so long and loud at capitalism. Somehow, I just can't picture them shouting:
”
"Down with the consumers!"[9]

Bugas's definition aligned with Austrian economics founder Carl Menger's vision (in his 1871 book Principles of
Economics) of consumer sovereignty, whereby consumer preferences, valuations, and choices control the
economy entirely (a concept directly opposed to the Marxian perception of the capitalist economy as a system of
exploitation).[10]
Vance Packard worked to change the meaning of the term "consumerism" from a positive word about consumer
practices to a negative word meaning excessive materialism and waste.[11] The ads for his 1960 book The Waste
Makers prominently featured the word "consumerism" in a negative way.[11]

History[edit]
Origins[edit]
The consumer society emerged in the late seventeenth century and intensified throughout the eighteenth
century. While some[who?] claim that change was propelled by the growing middle-class who embraced new ideas
about luxury consumption and the growing importance of fashion as an arbiter for purchasing rather than
necessity, many critics[who?] argue that consumerism was a political and economic necessity for the reproduction
of capitalist competition for markets and profits, while others point to the increasing political strength of
international working class organizations during a rapid increase in technological productivity and decline in
necessary scarcity as a catalyst to develop a consumer culture based on therapeutic entertainments, home
ownership and debt. The more positive, middle-class view argues that this revolution encompassed the growth in
construction of vast country estates specifically designed to cater for comfort and the increased availability of
luxury goods aimed at a growing market. This included sugar, tobacco, tea and coffee; these were increasingly
grown on vast plantations (historically by slave labor) in the Caribbean as demand steadily rose. In particular,
sugar consumption in Britain[12] during the course of the 18th century increased by a factor of 20.
Critics argue that colonialism was indeed a driver of consumerism, but they would place the emphasis on the
supply rather than the demand as the motivating factor. An increasing mass of exotic imports as well as domestic
manufactures had to be consumed by the same number of people who had been consuming far less than was
becoming necessary. Historically, the notion that high levels of consumption of consumer goods is the same
thing as achieving success or even freedom did not pre-exist large scale capitalist production and colonial
imports. That idea was produced later, more or less strategically in order to intensify consumption domestically
and make resistant cultures more flexible to extend its reach.[13][14][15][16]
Culture of consumption[edit]

Bernard Mandeville's work Fable of the Bees, which justified conspicuous consumption.

This pattern was particularly visible in London where the gentry and prosperous merchants took up residence
and created a culture of luxury and consumption that was slowly extended across the socio-economic divide.
Marketplaces expanded as shopping centres, such as the New Exchange, opened in 1609 by Robert Cecil in
the Strand. Shops started to become important as places for Londoners to meet and socialise and became
popular destinations alongside the theatre. Restoration London also saw the growth of luxury buildings as
advertisements for social position with speculative architects like Nicholas Barbon and Lionel Cranfield.
There was growth in industries like glass making and silk manufacturing, and much pamphleteering of the time
was devoted to justifying private vice for luxury goods for the greater public good. This then scandalous line of
thought caused great controversy with the publication of Bernard Mandeville's influential work Fable of the
Bees in 1714, in which he argued that a country's prosperity ultimately lay in the self-interest of the consumer.[17]
Advertising plays a major role in creating a consumerist society, as goods are marketed through various
platforms in nearly all aspects of life, pushing the message that the viewer's life is in need of some product.
Consumerism is discussed in detail in the textbook Media in Everyday Life. The authors write, "Consumerism is
deeply integrated into the daily life and the visual culture of the societies in which we live, often in ways that we
do not even recognize" (Smulyan 266). She continues, "Thus even products that are sold as exemplifying
tradition and heritage, such as Quaker Oats cereal, are marketed through constantly changing advertising
messages" (Smulyan 266). Advertising changes with the consumer in order to keep up with their target,
identifying their needs and their associations of brands and products before the viewer is consciously aware.
Mediums through which individuals are exposed to ads is ever changing and ever growing, as marketers are
always trying to get in touch with their audience, and adapts to ways to keep attention. For example, billboards
were created around the time that the automobile became prevalent in society, and they were created to provide
viewers with short details about a brand or a "catch phrase" that a driver could spot, recognize, and remember
(Smulyan 273). In the 21st century there is an extreme focus on technology and digitization of culture. Much of
the advertising is done in cohesive campaigns through various mediums that make ignoring company messages
nearly impossible. Aram Sinnreich writes about the relationship between online advertisers and publishers and
how it has been strengthen by the digitization of media, as consumer's data is always being collected through
their online activity (Sinnreich 3). In this way, consumers are targeted based on their searches and bombarded
with information about more goods and services that they may eventually need, positioning themselves as a
need rather than a want.

Josiah Wedgwood's pottery, a status symbol of consumerism in the late 18th century.

These trends were vastly accelerated in the 18th century, as rising prosperity and social mobility increased the
number of people with disposable income for consumption. Important shifts included the marketing of goods for
individuals as opposed to items for the household, and the new status of goods as status symbols, related to
changes in fashion and desired for aesthetic appeal, as opposed to just their utility. The pottery inventor
and entrepreneur, Josiah Wedgwood, noticed the way aristocratic fashions, themselves subject to periodic
changes in direction, slowly filtered down through society. He pioneered the use of marketing techniques to
influence and manipulate the direction of the prevailing tastes and preferences to cause his goods to be
accepted among the aristocracy; it was only a matter of time before his goods were being rapidly bought up by
the middle classes as well. His example was followed by other producers of a wide range of products and the
spread and importance of consumption fashions became steadily more important.[18]
Mass-production[edit]
Main article: mass production
The Industrial Revolution dramatically increased the availability of consumer goods, although it was still primarily
focused on the capital goods sector and industrial infrastructure (i.e., mining, steel, oil, transportation networks,
communications networks, industrial cities, financial centers, etc.).[19] The advent of the department
store represented a paradigm shift in the experience of shopping. For the first time, customers could buy an
astonishing variety of goods, all in one place, and shopping became a popular leisure activity. While previously
the norm had been the scarcity of resources, the Industrial era created an unprecedented economic situation.
For the first time in history products were available in outstanding quantities, at outstandingly low prices, being
thus available to virtually everyone in the industrialized West.
By the turn of the 20th century the average worker in Western Europe or the United States still spent
approximately 80-90% of their income on food and other necessities. What was needed to propel consumerism
proper, was a system of mass production and consumption, exemplified in Henry Ford, the
American car manufacturer. After observing the assembly lines in the meat packing industry, Frederick Winslow
Taylor brought his theory of scientific management to the organization of the assembly line in other industries;
this unleashed incredible productivity and reduced the costs of all commodities produced on assembly lines.[20][need
quotation to verify]

Black Friday shoppers, DC USA

Consumerism has long had intentional underpinnings, rather than just developing out of capitalism. As an
example, Earnest Elmo Calkinsnoted to fellow advertising executives in 1932 that "consumer engineering must
see to it that we use up the kind of goods we now merely use", while the domestic theorist Christine
Frederick observed in 1929 that "the way to break the vicious deadlock of a low standard of living is to spend
freely, and even waste creatively".[21]
The older term and concept of "conspicuous consumption" originated at the turn of the 20th century in the
writings of sociologist and economist, Thorstein Veblen. The term describes an apparently irrational and
confounding form of economic behaviour. Veblen's scathing proposal that this unnecessary consumption is a
form of status display is made in darkly humorous observations like the following:

“
It is true of dress in even a higher degree than of most other items of consumption, that people will
undergo a very considerable degree of privation in the comforts or the necessaries of life in order to afford
what is considered a decent amount of wasteful consumption; so that it is by no means an uncommon
occurrence, in an inclement climate, for people to go ill clad in order to appear well dressed.[22] ”
The term "conspicuous consumption" spread to describe consumerism in the United States in the 1960s, but was
soon linked to debates about media theory, culture jamming, and its corollary productivism.

“ ”
By 1920 most people [Americans] had experimented with occasional installment buying.[23]

In the 21st century[edit]

McDonald's and KFC restaurants in China

Madeline Levine criticized what she saw as a large change in American culture — "a shift away from values
of community, spirituality, and integrity, and toward competition, materialism and disconnection."[24]
Businesses have realized that wealthy consumers are the most attractive targets of marketing. The upper class's
tastes, lifestyles, and preferences trickle down to become the standard for all consumers. The not-so-wealthy
consumers can "purchase something new that will speak of their place in the tradition of affluence".[25] A
consumer can have the instant gratification of purchasing an expensive item to improve social status.
Emulation is also a core component of 21st century consumerism. As a general trend, regular consumers seek to
emulate those who are above them in the social hierarchy. The poor strive to imitate the wealthy and the wealthy
imitate celebrities and other icons. The celebrity endorsement of products can be seen as evidence of the desire
of modern consumers to purchase products partly or solely to emulate people of higher social status. This
purchasing behavior may co-exist in the mind of a consumer with an image of oneself as being an individualist.
Cultural capital, the intangible social value of goods, is not solely generated by the upper class. Subcultures also
manipulate the value and prevalence of certain commodities through the process of bricolage. Bricolage is the
process by which mainstream products are adopted and transformed by subcultures.[26] These items develop a
function and meaning that differs from their corporate producer's intent. In many cases, commodities that have
undergone bricolage often develop political meanings. For example, Doc Martens, originally marketed as
workers boots, gained popularity with the punk movement and AIDs activism groups and became symbols of an
individual's place in that social group.[27] When corporate America recognized the growing popularity of Doc
Martens they underwent another change in cultural meaning through counter-bricolage. The widespread sale
and marketing of Doc Martens brought the boots back into the mainstream. While corporate America reaped the
ever-growing profits of the increasingly expensive boot and those modeled after its style, Doc Martens lost their
original political association. Mainstream consumers used Doc Martens and similar items to create an
"individualized" sense identity by appropriating statement items from subcultures they admired.

Criticism[edit]
This article's Criticism or Controversy section may compromise the article's neutral
point of view of the subject. Please integrate the section's contents into the article as a
whole, or rewrite the material. (July 2011)

Anti-consumerism
Theories and ideas[hide]

 Affluenza
 Alternative culture
 Autonomous building
 Billboard hacking
 Buddhist economics
 Buy Nothing Day
 Collaborative consumption
 Commodification
 Commodity fetishism
 Commune
 Compulsive buying disorder
 Conspicuous consumption
 Consumer capitalism
 Consumerism
 Criticism of advertising
 Culture jamming
 Degrowth
 Do it yourself
 DIY ethic
 Downshifting
 Ecovillage
 Ethical consumerism
 Freeganism
 Gift economy
 Green consumption
 Hyperconsumerism
 Local food
 Microgeneration
 Overconsumption
 Planned obsolescence
 Post-consumerism
 Simple living
 Slow Food
 Spectacle
 Steady-state economy
 Subvertising
 Sustainable consumer behaviour
 Sustainable consumption

Notable works[show]

Organizations and groups[show]

People[show]

Related social movements[show]

 See also[show]

 v
 t
 e
Main articles: Anti-consumerism and Affluenza
Overview [edit]

Buy Nothing Day demonstration in San Francisco, November 2000.

Shop Until You Drop by Banksy, in London.

Since consumerism began, various individuals and groups have consciously sought an alternative lifestyle.
These movements range on a spectrum from moderate "simple living",[28] "eco-conscious shopping",[29] and
"localvore"/"buying local",[30] to Freeganism on the extreme end. Building on these movements, ecological
economics is a discipline which addresses the macro-economic, social and ecological implications of a primarily
consumer-driven economy.
In many critical contexts, consumerism is used to describe the tendency of people to identify strongly with
products or services they consume, especially those with commercial brand names and perceived status-
symbolism appeal, e.g. a luxury car, designer clothing, or expensive jewelry. Consumerism can take extreme
forms such that consumers sacrifice significant time and income not only to purchase but also to actively support
a certain firm or brand.[31]
Opponents of consumerism argue that many luxuries and unnecessary consumer products may act as a social
mechanism allowing people to identify like-minded individuals through the display of similar products, again
utilizing aspects of status-symbolism to judge socioeconomic status and social stratification. Some people
believe relationships with a product or brand name are substitutes for healthy human relationships lacking
in societies, and along with consumerism, create a cultural hegemony, and are part of a general process of
social control[32] in modern society. Critics of consumerism often point out that consumerist societies are more
prone to damage the environment, contribute to global warming and use up resources at a higher rate than other
societies.[33] Dr. Jorge Majfudsays that "Trying to reduce environmental pollution without reducing consumerism is
like combatting drug trafficking without reducing the drug addiction."[34]
In 1955, economist Victor Lebow stated:

“ ”
Our enormously productive economy demands that we make consumption our way of life, that we convert
the buying and use of goods into rituals, that we seek our spiritual satisfaction and our ego satisfaction in
 consumption. We need things consumed, burned up, worn out, replaced and discarded at an ever-
increasing rate.[35]

Critics of consumerism include Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI,[36] German historian Oswald Spengler (who said,
"Life in America is exclusively economic in structure and lacks depth"[37]), and French writer Georges Duhamel,
who held "American materialism up as a beacon of mediocrity that threatened to eclipse French civilization".[37]
In an opinion segment of New Scientist magazine published in August 2009, reporter Andy Coghlan cited William
Rees of the University of British Columbia and epidemiologist Warren Hern of the University of Colorado at
Boulder, saying that human beings, despite considering themselves civilized thinkers, are "subconsciously still
driven by an impulse for survival, domination and expansion ... an impulse which now finds expression in the
idea that inexorable economic growth is the answer to everything, and, given time, will redress all the world's
existing inequalities."[38] According to figures presented by Rees at the annual meeting of the Ecological Society
of America, human society is in a "global overshoot", consuming 30% more material than is sustainable from the
world's resources. Rees went on to state that at present, 85 countries are exceeding their domestic "bio-
capacities", and compensate for their lack of local material by depleting the stocks of other countries, which have
a material surplus due to their lower consumption.[38] Not only that, but McCraken indicates that the ways in which
consumer goods and services are bought, created and used should be taken under consideration when studying
consumption.[39]
Furthermore, some theorists are concerned with the place commodity takes in the definition of one's self. Media
theorists Straut Ewen coined the term "commodity self" to describe an identity built by the goods we
consume.[40] For example, people often identify as PC or Mac users, or define themselves as a Coke drinker
rather than Pepsi. The ability to choose one product out an apparent mass of others allows a person to build a
sense "unique" individuality, despite the prevalence of Mac users or the nearly identical tastes of Coke and
Pepsi.[40] By owning a product from a certain brand, one's ownership becomes a vehicle of presenting an identity
that is associated with the attitude of the brand. The idea of individual choice is exploited by corporations that
claim to sell "uniqueness" and the building blocks of an identity. The invention of the commodity self is a driving
force of consumerist societies, preying upon the deep human need to build a sense of self.
Not all anti-consumerists oppose consumption in itself, but they argue against increasing the consumption of
resources beyond what is environmentally sustainable. Jonathan Porritt writes that consumers are often unaware
of the negative environmental impacts of producing many modern goods and services, and that the
extensive advertising industry only serves to reinforce increasing consumption.[41] Likewise, other ecological
economists such as Herman Daly and Tim Jackson recognize the inherent conflict between consumer-driven
consumption and planet-wide ecological degradation.
Consumerism as cultural ideology[edit]
In the 21st century's globalized economy, consumerism has become a noticeable part of the culture.[42] Critics of
the phenomenon not only criticized it against what is environmentally sustainable, but also the spread of
consumerism in cultural aspects. Leslie Sklair proposes the criticism through the idea of culture-ideology of
consumerism in his works. He says that,

“
First, capitalism entered a qualitatively new globalizing phase in the 1950s. As the electronic revolution
got underway, significant changes began to occur in the productivity of capitalist factories, systems of
extraction and processing of raw materials, product design, marketing and distribution of goods and
services. […] Second, the technical and social relations that structured the mass media all over the world
made it very easy for new consumerist lifestyles to become the dominant motif for these media, which
became in time extraordinarily efficient vehicles for the broadcasting of the culture-ideology of
consumerism globally.[43] ”
As of today, people are exposed to mass consumerism and product placement in the media or even in their daily
lives. The line between information, entertainment, and promotion of products has been blurred so people are
more reformulated into consumerist behaviour.[44] Shopping centers are a representative example of a place
where people are explicitly exposed to an environment that welcomes and encourages consumption as some of
them are open for 24 hours. Goss says that the shopping center designers "strive to present an alternative
rationale for the shopping center's existence, manipulate shoppers' behavior through the configuration of space,
and consciously design a symbolic landscape that provokes associative moods and dispositions in the
shopper".[45]
The success of the consumerist cultural ideology can be witnessed all around the world. People rush to the mall
to buy products and end up spending money with their credit cards, thus locking themselves into the financial
system of capitalist globalization.[44]
Sociological Theories of Consumerism and Consumption
Posted on October 12, 2016by Karl Thompson

Many of us spend a lot of time thinking about the things

we might consume, and how we might consume them, and we do this not only as individuals, but
as friends, partners, and families, and so intensely do we think about our consumption practices
that the things we buy and the experiences we engage which are linked to them become invested
with emotional significance and central (crutches) to our very identities.
The consumption of goods and services is so thoroughly embedded into our ordinary, everyday
lives that many aspects of its practice go largely unquestioned – not only the environmental and
social consequences have got lost on the way, but also they very notion that consumption itself is a
choice, and that, once our basic needs are met, consumption in its symbolic sense is not necessary
and thus is itself a choice.

In sociological terms one might say that contemporary reflexivity is bounded by consumption –
that is to say that most of the things most of us think about in life – be they pertaining to self-
construction, relationship maintenance, or instrumental goal-attainment, involve us making
choices about (the strictly unnecessary) things we might consume.

Even though I think that any attempt to achieve happiness through consumption will ultimately
result in misery, I would hardly call anyone who tries to do so stupid – because all they are going is
conforming to a number of recent social changes which have led to our society being based around
historically high levels of consumption.

There are numerous explanations for the growth of a diverse consumer culture and thus the
intense levels of unnecessary symbolic consumption engaged in by most people today – the
overview taken below is primarily from Joel Stillerman (2015) who seems to identify five major
changes which underpin recent changes in consumption since WW2.

The first explanation looks to the 1960s counter culture which despite having a reputation for
being anti-consumerist, was really more about non-conformity, a rejection of standardised mass-
consumption and promoting individual self expression. Ironically, the rejection of standardised
consumption became a model for the niche-marketing of today, much of which is targeted towards
people who wish to express themselves in any manor of ways – through clothing, music, foodism,
craft beers, or experiences. Some members of the counter culture in fact found profit in
establishing their own niche-consumer outlets, with even some Punks (surely the Zenith of anti-
consumerism?!) going on to develop their own clothing brands.
A second discussion surrounding the normalisation of consumerism centres around changes in
the class structure, following the work Bourdieu and Featherstone (2000). Basically these theorists
see the intensification of consumption as being related to the emergence of the ‘new middle classes’
as a result of technological innovations and social changes leading to an increase in the number of
people working in jobs such as the media and fashion.
Mike Featherstone focuses on what he calls the importance of ‘cultural intermediaries’ (who
mainly work in the entertainment and personal care industries) who have adopted an ‘ethic of self-
expression through consumption’ – in which they engage in self-care in order to improve their
bodies and skills in order to gain social and economic capital.

The values of these early adopters has gradually filtered down to the rest of the population and this
has resulted in the ‘aestheticisation of daily life’ – in which more and more people are now engaged
in consumption in order to improve themselves and their social standing – as evidenced in various
fitness classes, plastic surgery, and a whole load of ‘skills based’ pursuits such as cookery classes
(yer signature bake if you like).

A third perspective focuses on individualisation – as advanced by the likes of Zygmunt Bauman

and Ulrich Beck.

In their view, after World War II, universal access to higher education and social welfare benefits
in Europe led to the erosion of traditional sources of identity provided by family, traditional
authority, and work. Today, individuals are ‘free’ from the chains of external sources of identity,
but this freedom comes at a price. Individuals are now compelled to give meaning to their lives
without the certainty that they are making the right choice that in the past had come from
tradition. Individuals are forced to be reflexive, to examine their own lives and to determine their
own identities. In this context, consumption may be a useful vehicle for constructing a life
narrative that gives focus and meaning to individuals.

As I’ve outlined in numerous blog posts before, Bauman especially sees this is a lot of work for
individuals – a never ending task, and a task over which they have no choice but to engage in
(actually I disagree here, individuals do have a choice, it’s just not that easy to see it, or carry it
through!).

Fourthly, Post-modern analyses of consumption focus on the increasing importance of

individuals to consumption. Building on the work of Lytoard etc. Firat and Venkatesh (1995) argue
that changes to Western cultures have led to the erosion of modernist ideas of progress, overly
simplified binary distinctions like production and consumption and the notion of the individual as
a unified actor. They suggest that in contemporary societies production and consumption exist in a
repeating cycle and retail cites and advertiser have increasingly focussed on producing symbols
which individuals consume in order to construct identities.
These changes have led to increasing specialising of products and more visually compelling
shopping environments, and F and V argue that these changes are liberating for individuals and
they seek meaning and identity through consumption, which they can increasingly do outside of
markets.
Fifthly – other researches have looked at the role of subcultures in contemporary society, where
individuals consume in order to signify their identity as part of a group, and doing so can involve
quite high levels of consumption, even if these groups appear quite deviant (McAlexander’s 1995
study of Harley Davidson riders looks interesting here, also Kozinet’s study of Star Trek fans).
Something which draws on numbers 3,4 and 5 above is the concept of consumer tribes (developed
by Cova et al 2007) which are constantly in flux, made up by different individuals whose identities
are multiple, diverse and playful – individuals in fact may be part of many tribes and enter and exit
them as they choose.

Finally, Stillerman points out that underlying all of the above are two important background
trends
 Firstly, there are the technological changes which made all of the above possible – the transport
links and the communications technologies.
 Secondly there is the (often discussed) links to the global south as a source of cheap production.
Very finally I’m going to add in one more thing to the above – underlying the increase in and
diversification of consumption is the fact that time has sped up – in the sense that fashions change
faster than ever and products become obsolete faster than ever – hence putting increasing
demands on people to spend more time and money year on year to keep up on the consumer
treadmill….
So there you have it – there are numerous social trends which lie behind the increase in and
diversification of consumption, so the next time you think you’re acting as an individual when
you’re getting your latest tattoo, maybe think again matey!

Related Posts
Consuming Life (Bauman, 2007) – A Summary of Chapter One
If you like this sort of thing – then why not my book?

Early Retirement Strategies for the Average Income Earner, or A Critique of Curiously Ordinary
Life of the Everyday Worker-Consumer
Postmodern Culture

Postmodern culture is a far reaching term describing a range of activities, events, and perspectives
relating to art, architecture, the humanities, and the social sciences beginning in the second half of
the twentieth century. In contrast to modern culture, with its emphasis on social progress, coherence,
and universality, postmodern culture represents instances of dramatic historical and ideological
change in which modernist narratives of progress and social holism are viewed as incomplete,
elastic, and contradictory. In conjunction with the end of modernist progress narratives, an insistence
on coherence gives way to diversity and the dominance of universality is subverted by difference
within a postmodern condition. Additionally, postmodern culture stands for more than the current
state of society. Postmodern culture is characterized by the valuing of activities, events, and
perspectives that emphasize the particular over the global or the fragment over the whole. This
reversal of a modernist ideology necessitates a valuation of variation and flexibility in the cultural
sphere. Primarily through the writings of Jean Francois Lyotard, whose seminal book The
Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge (1984) remains the definitive exposition of the term
and its significance to society, postmodern culture has come to be identified with a radical critique
of the relationship between the particular and the universal in art, culture, and politics.

The most visible signs of postmodern culture appear in art, architecture, film, music, and literature
after the 1950s. The most prominent stylistic features that unite these diverse forums are pastiche,
non representationalism, and non linearity. In the art and architecture of postmodern culture, collage
and historical eclecticism are emphasized. The American painter Mark Tansey depicts historical
scenes and figures in anachronistic situations. His 1982 painting Purity Test positions a group of
‘‘traditional’’ Native Americans on horseback over looking Smithson’s 1970 Sprial Jetty, a temporal
impossibility. In architecture, Robert Venturi combines classical and modern architectural features,
juxtaposing distinct historical styles. Art and architecture within postmodern culture celebrate collage
and do not symbolize historical, thematic, or organic unity. Their postmodern quality can be found in
the artist’s or architect’s desire to abandon the constraints of temporal, stylistic, and historical
continuity.

In film, literature, and music representative of postmodern culture there is an emphasis on non
linearity, parody, and pastiche. Post modern film, such as the Coen brothers’ Blood Simple or Fargo,
disrupt narrative timelines and emphasize the work of parody. Quentin Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction, for
instance, ‘‘begins’’ at the end and continually recycles crime scene cliches throughout the plot.
Similar aesthetic principles are at play in postmodern literature in which the ‘‘realist mode’’ is
thwarted in favor of the seemingly nonsensical. The Canadian writer Douglas Coupland epitomizes
this departure from realism. All Families Are Psychotic (2001) depicts the surreal life of the
Drummond family – a disparate familial group brought together by the daughter’s impending launch
into space and the financial woes of the father. In film and fiction the everydayness of life is shown
to be complex, parodic, and undetermined. The division between the so called ‘‘real’’ and ‘‘unreal’’
is collapsed and vast excesses of postmodern society are allowed to spiral out of control.
Postmodern culture ‘‘adopts a dedifferentiating approach that will fully subverts boundaries between
high and low art, artist and spectator and among different artistic forms and genres’’ (Best & Kellner
1997: 132).

Music in postmodern culture shares a great deal with the previous artistic forms. The discontinuity
that one associates with John Cage’s atonal compositions is taken to another level. Contemporary
postmodern musicians mix and match different musical styles and traditions, adding a cultural
pastiche to Cage’s theory of improvisation. Bubba Sparxxx’s (a.k.a. Warren Anderson Mathis) ‘‘Dirty
South,’’ ‘‘Southern Hip Hop,’’ or ‘‘Hip Hop Country’’ style mixes the sound and theme of traditional
hip hop music with a Country nuance. His lyrics, especially in his 2001 song ‘‘Ugly,’’ address issues
of identity and the hybridity and similarity that one finds among urban and rural youth as they attempt
to attain stardom within the entertainment industry. Along the same lines, rapper Kanye West
combines hip hop music with Caribbean styles, including the reggae sound and motifs one would
associate with Ziggy Marley. West, in addition to his political and cultural messages, offers a
‘‘Christian Rap’’ testimony in his music. His 2004 ‘‘Jesus Walks’’ integrates a heavy, military urban
sound with gospel themes drawn from direct references to biblical passages. In popular music,
figures such as Paul Simon and Sting utilize non Western (primarily African and Middle Eastern)
sounds and style in their recent albums. Music in postmodern culture is heterogeneous, stylistically
mixed, and international in influence.

While postmodern culture can be illuminated by reference to specific cultural products, it is important
to keep in mind the underlying philosophical logic driving the phenomenon. Postmodernity as a
reaction against a modernity, as Lyotard observes, is grounded in the Enlightenment, with its
confidence in the faculty of reason to ascertain philosophical ‘‘truths’’ and its dedication to the
progress of science and technology to enhance and improve the human situation. Taken together,
this confidence and dedication to a particular intellectual framework produces monolithic accounts
of the nature of reality and human kind’s place within it. The ‘‘postmodern condition,’’ therefore, is a
disruption in the claim of totality found in these Enlightenment generated accounts. According to
postmodernists, the western worldview, with its commitment to universality in all things related to
being human, gives way under the weight of its own contradictions and repressions. The
comprehensive grand theories or grand narratives, as Lyotard describes them, subsequently fail in
a postmodern era insofar as the plurality of human existence emerges within a wider cultural space.
Postmodern knowledge of the world, as Lyotard explains, must take into account the multiplicity of
experience or ‘‘phrasings’’ and the possibility of new, unanticipated experiences or phrasings that
will assist in making sense of reality in ways either not permitted or not imagined by a modernist
ideology. The content of knowledge we presently possess is continually being transformed by
technology and ‘‘the nature of knowledge cannot survive unchanged within this context of general
transformation’’ (Lyotard 1984: 4). Culture, as it pertains to postmodernism, is more than a repository
of data; it is the activity that shapes and gives meaning to the world, constructing reality rather than
presenting it.

Postmodern culture, as a valorization of the multiplicity found in ‘‘little narratives,’’ exhibits anti
modernist tendencies, with art and politics rejecting calls to narrative totalization. Jameson (1984),
referring to the social theorist Jurgen Habermas, states that ‘‘postmodernism involves the explicit
repudiation of the modernist tradition – the return of the middle class philistine or Spiessburger
(bourgeois) rejection of modernist forms and values – and as such the expression of a new social
conservatism.’’ While an emphasis on the particular over the universal captures the revolutionary
impulse found in the political and aesthetic sentiments of Lyotardian postmodernism, it runs counter
to a lengthy critique of postmodernism by social theorists, mainly Marxists, who view this turn to the
particularity of ‘‘little narratives’’ as a symptom of late capitalism, with its valuation on proliferating
commodities and flexible corporate organizational models. The characteristics of multiplicity,
pastiche, and non linearity, while viewed as offering new aesthetic, epistemological, and political
possibilities by postmodern artists, architects, writers, filmmakers, and theorists, are understood by
those who reject postmodernism as examples of the ‘‘logic of late capitalism’’ ( Jameson 1984) in
which commodities and consumers enter into rapid, undifferentiated exchange in ever increasing
and diversified markets.
Harvey (1989) argues that postmodernism is the ideological ally of global capitalism, which is
characterized in part by decentered organizational modes, intersecting markets, and hyper
consumerism. While social theorists such as Daniel Bell, Philip Cooke, Edward Soja, and Scott Lash
see postmodern culture as a symptom of global capitalist ideology, others view it as an extension or
completion of the modernist project. Bauman (1992) notes that ‘‘the post modern condition can be
therefore described . . . as modernity emancipated from false consciousness [and] as a new type of
social condition marked by the overt institutionalization of characteristics which modernity – in its
designs and managerial practices – set about to eliminate and, failing that, tried to conceal.’’ In this
account, postmodern culture is viewed as having a continuity with modernism and not necessarily
an affiliation with a late capitalist mode of production. Although the features of post modern culture
are similarly described and agreed upon by social and literary theorists from across the ideological
spectrum, the meaning of postmodern culture remains largely in dispute, with its advocates seeing
it as a new condition and its detractors seeing it as an accomplice to late capitalism and conservative
ideology.

In the few decades since its inception as a critical concept in the arts, architecture, humanities, and
social sciences, postmodern culture remains controversial. Artists, architects, writers, philosophers,
social theorists, and film makers continue to explore its vast possibilities, however. Whether it is a
new condition, an emancipation from modernist false consciousness, a subsidiary of late capitalism,
or a indefinable Zeitgeist, the debate over postmodern culture will be a central feature of intellectual
life for years to come.

Postmodern culture:

Characteristics of postmodern culture are that it is:

 Interconnected and multicultural. Globablisation is an element of postmodern culture.

 Technologically developed. Information is freely available.

 Pluralistic and diverse. Diversity is encouraged and people have a wide range of choices available to them.

 Tolerant and liberal. Respect for difference is encouraged.

 Opposed to totalitarianism/imperialism/authoritarianism. Imposing one set of views on others is

discouraged.
 Globalization's Impact in Advertising
by Lou Hirsh

Related Articles
 1What Is the Difference in Global Advertising & International Advertising?
 2How Does Globalization Affect an Organization's Business Approach?
 3What Is Print Media Advertising?
 4Cultural Influences on Marketing Strategies
Global advertising spending reached $557 billion in 2012, according to the Nielsen research firm. Increasing globalization
of industries such as consumer goods and automotive sales is prompting advertisers to alter their creative and spending
strategies in order to reach buyers in countries that are seeing a rise in disposable income. Companies of all sizes have found
that advertising campaigns that work well in one country won't necessarily have the same impact in all markets.
Strategic Challenges

Researchers at New York University's Stern School of Business note challenges in reaching target audiences include the fact
that media channels don't have the same reach in all countries. TV advertising might reach much smaller audiences in
certain countries than they would in the United States. Print media may not work in markets that still have low levels of
literacy. Radio advertising might be most effective in a region like South America, where popular music is an important part
of local culture.

Cultural Barriers

Language and cultural differences also need to be considered when advertising in different countries. For instance, the Stern
School researchers note, the American Dairy Association's "Got Milk?" campaign, which was highly successful in the U.S.,
did not work in Mexico because the phrase, when translated into Spanish, comes out as "Are You Lactating?" Humorous ad
campaigns might work in one country while falling flat in another, and care must be taken with the use of certain symbols
and colors. Several tropical countries, for example, associate the color green with danger, which is not the case in the U.S.,
and the color red is associated with weddings and happiness in China.

Global Brands

Several companies have managed to overcome the complexities of transnational marketing to establish successful global
brands. McDonald's, for instance, has developed clear, simple and consistent marketing messages that translate to different
cultures and has revised its product lines to feature healthier items and others geared to local markets -- such as wine in
France and sushi in Asian countries. Others have capitalized on global events like the Olympics to boost their brands with an
international audience, such as electronics maker LG when the games were held in South Korea and wireless carrier China
Mobile when the event took place in Beijing.
Global Consumers

Effective advertising can create new demand in new markets, by influencing changes in buying habits and lifestyles. Teens
and young adults overseas have turned American brands like Levi's, Nike, McDonald's and Marlboro into international
brands. In some countries, the adoption of Western products has caused cultural and political backlashes. However, rising
access to cable and satellite TV, as well as broadband Internet, also establish common bonds and expectations among
nations, which has worked to the advantage of airlines, clothing makers and other advertisers targeting a global audience.

What Is Globalization?

Globalization is a process of interaction and integration among the people, companies, and governments of different
nations, a process driven by international trade and investment and aided by information technology. This process
has effects on the environment, on culture, on political systems, on economic development and prosperity, and
on human physical well-beingin societies around the world.

Globalization is not new, though. For thousands of years, people—and, later, corporations—have been buying from
and selling to each other in lands at great distances, such as through the famed Silk Road across Central Asia that
connected China and Europe during the Middle Ages. Likewise, for centuries, people and corporations have invested
in enterprises in other countries. In fact, many of the features of the current wave of globalization are similar to
those prevailing before the outbreak of the First World War in 1914.

But policy and technological developments of the past few decades have spurred increases in cross-border trade,
investment, and migration so large that many observers believe the world has entered a qualitatively new phase in
its economic development. Since 1950, for example, the volume of world trade has increased by 20 times, and from
just 1997 to 1999 flows of foreign investment nearly doubled, from $468 billion to $827 billion. Distinguishing this
current wave of globalization from earlier ones, author Thomas Friedman has said that today globalization is
“farther, faster, cheaper, and deeper.”

This current wave of globalization has been driven by policies that have opened economies domestically and
internationally. In the years since the Second World War, and especially during the past two decades, many
governments have adopted free-market economic systems, vastly increasing their own productive potential and
creating myriad new opportunities for international trade and investment. Governments also have negotiated
dramatic reductions in barriers to commerce and have established international agreements to promote trade in
goods, services, and investment. Taking advantage of new opportunities in foreign markets, corporations have built
foreign factories and established production and marketing arrangements with foreign partners. A defining feature
of globalization, therefore, is an international industrial and financial business structure.

Technology has been the other principal driver of globalization. Advances in information technology, in particular,
have dramatically transformed economic life. Information technologies have given all sorts of individual economic
actors—consumers, investors, businesses—valuable new tools for identifying and pursuing economic opportunities,
including faster and more informed analyses of economic trends around the world, easy transfers of assets, and
collaboration with far-flung partners.

Globalization is deeply controversial, however. Proponents of globalization argue that it allows poor countries and
their citizens to develop economically and raise their standards of living, while opponents of globalization claim that
the creation of an unfettered international free market has benefited multinational corporations in the Western
world at the expense of local enterprises, local cultures, and common people. Resistance to globalization has
therefore taken shape both at a popular and at a governmental level as people and governments try to manage the
flow of capital, labor, goods, and ideas that constitute the current wave of globalization.

To find the right balance between benefits and costs associated with globalization, citizens of all nations need to
understand how globalization works and the policy choices facing them and their societies. Globalization101.org tries
to provide an accurate analysis of the issues and controversies regarding globalization, without the slogans or
ideological biases generally found in discussions of the topics. We welcome you to our website.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

https://revisesociology.com/category/globalisation/

References:
1. Bauman, Z. (1992) Intimations of Postmodernity. Routledge, London.
2. Best, S. & Kellner, D. (1991) Postmodern Theory: Critical Interrogations. Guilford Press, New
York.
3. Best, S. & Kellner, D. (1997) The Postmodern Turn. Guilford Press, New York.
4. Debeljak, A. (1998) Reluctant Modernity: The Institution of Art and Its Historical Forms.
Rowman & Littlefield, New York.
5. Harvey, D. (1989) The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural
Change. Blackwell, Oxford.
6. Jameson, F. (1984) Forward. In: Lyotard, J.-F., The Postmodern Condition: A Report on
Knowledge. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp. vii xxi.
7. Lyotard, J.-F. (1984) The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. University of
Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
8. Taylor, V. (2000) Para/Inquiry: Postmodern Religion and Culture. Routledge, London.

http://smallbusiness.chron.com/globalizations-impact-advertising-71068.html