Entry 2: Respond to Setting the Course

"Naturally, these ads appealed to "externals" - in dress, grooming, and scent - and often reinforced the idea that 'impressions' counted for everything: "Let your face reflect confidence - not worry" declared an ad for Williams Shaving Cream. Such messages capitalized 'on an increasing public uncertainty that true ability and character would always win out in the scramble for success [and] stressed the narrowness of the line that separated those who succeeded from those who failed'" (Bottom of page 10)

Although it is clear that advertisements do appeal to "externals", I had never really thought about about how advertisements try to link the superficial characteristics of dress, clothes, and scent, with more complex core characteristics such as personality, character, and confidence level. The idea of giving material goods some greater symbolic meaning and convincing people that a nice shirt or a close shave can give you more confidence seems ridiculous from a rational standpoint. How can a simple shirt define one as a person and boost one's confidence? However, from a psychological standpoint it becomes clear that if people truly believe what an advertisement says about a certain article of clothing that makes people more confident, then by wearing that piece of clothing the person becomes more confident. But it is not the shirt that makes them more confident, it is merely the belief that the shirt makes them more confident, which actually boosts their confidence. Following this logic, it becomes clear that a person can give any inanimate object some greater meaning and then allow that same object to influence them in a variety of ways. One simple example is a lucky penny. It is simply a penny, but because a person has given it a greater meaning, it becomes more than just a simple penny.

Advertisements utilize people's own psychological tendencies against them, it what appears to be a constant self-fulfilling prophecy of companies giving their goods a symbolic meaning, so people will purchase them in an attempt to boost their confidence, make them more attractive, or even make them happy; and if the buyer truly believes in the product, then it will most likely have the desired effect.

I do not believe this topic is debatable. It is clear that advertisements play off people's innate psychological habits in order to influence the buyer and their beliefs. People are not born knowing who they are or what they want beyond basic freudian urges. Instead people learn what they want and who they are, in large part from corporations and advertisements. From a broader perspective, one could even say that corporate media not only defines who one is as an individual, but defines the entire American society.

Lastly, i believe this argument is the cornerstone of the piece, as well the entire advertising industry. How can psychology be used to manipulate the masses? The answer is all around us.

“Trademarks- from the stereotyped black cook on Aunt Jemima pancake mix to the simple white and red Campbell’s Soup label design- persuaded customers to demand branded products from retailers. Packages seduced shoppers with the subliminal appeal of their color and shape and made the loyal consumers with the predictable flavor and feel of the contents” (from the top of page 8 in the reader).

It never occurred to me how sub-conscious the power of branding is when it comes to nearly any type of product. There are a lot of famous brands that have had their names turned into regular verbs or nouns (in lieu of proper nouns) because they’ve become so commonly used. It’s easy to forget that Xerox, Band-Aid, Google and Kleenex are technically companies. These organizations have created such a strong brand, that we used them in regular speech. I find myself often saying, “Do you have any Kleenex?” (Instead of “tissues”) or “I bet if I Google that, I can find an answer” (instead of saying “internet search”).

I’m not certain how powerful or meaningful these brands are. When I ask someone “do you have a Band-Aid? I’ve cut myself,” am I really asking them for a band-aid brand bandage, or for just any type of bandage?

When I go to the grocery store, I would probably prefer the Band-Aid brand bandage to the generic type because I have a certain (maybe irrational) association with Band-Aid brand bandages doing an excellent job covering a cut. That’s were the brand counts the most- when we subconsciously purchase it (in the case of Kleenex and Band-Aid) or use the service (in the case of Google and Xerox) the brand provides.

“Even more important in accelerating American spending was the installment plan....This did not mean that Americans became spendthrifts. Rather, installment buying encouraged consumers to reduce impulsive spending on ephemeral luxuries and plan purchases of durable luxuries.” (pg 29)

I found this analysis particularly startling considering the retrospective angle provided from the current credit crisis. At what point did the rational exchange of future earnings for current lifestyle improvements deteriorate so drastically into the crazed excess of over-consumption to the point of crippling our economy? Are years of successful advertising techniques to blame as they blend need, want and extravagant into an emotional sense of self-value; feeding into, perhaps creating, a culture of self-promotion through material status. In a society that so blatantly, so unapologetically flaunts position from possessions, the mounting pressure on citizens to define themselves with their purchases seems to have swung far away from the sustainable luxury of the early 20th century.

As with most bubbles, I fully expect consumer culture to self-correct into some sort of equilibrium of affordable living, but whether that change amounts to a society wide introspective of material priority, I tend to think that consumerism is so deeply entrenched within the framework of this country, due heavily to the systematic nature of advertising propaganda, that only environmental limitations can eliminate the excessive desires.

"Name brands did more than create dominant companies. They also served to democratize American life at a time when social differences were extreme." (Middle paragraph, page 8)

When we think of name brands, we often think of luxuries that are often extravagant or unnecessary. We are led to believe that name brands are for the elite or those who are financially well-off. We think of designers like Louis Vuitton or Chanel, and shoe brands like Nike or Vans. In reality, however, name brands are among the very products that we find necessary to our survival, such as groceries.

I never once thought about the fact that the majority of the groceries I consume were considered name brands, much less realized that the offering of these products by companies to the consumer helped to democratize Americans once upon a time. It almost seems absurd that this was once the case, for rather than democratizing the population, name brands seem to exist as if to more distinctly separate the different classes. If one is unable to purchase a particular kind of gadget it seems to be a tell tale sign that they are not as financially well-off as those who are able to.

College campuses, however, seem to be the excluded from the class-typing population of name brand consumers, albeit to a certain degree. Rather than attempting to live in luxury, most college students are living and spending with the intent of simply surviving. Instead of finding Coke and Aunt Jemaima syrup in our cabinets, you'll often find the generic version of such commodities. Finding such items as these in a friend's cabinet, however, does not alert one to their financial status. Rather, this seems to be the norm.

This aversion to name brands, however, rarely transcends from groceries to clothing and technological commodities. Rather than spending extra money on name brand soups and sodas, the majority of our young population would prefer to spend that money on the latest name brand fashions and gadgets. While in theory this seems quite absurd, I, for one, happen to enjoy my Blackberry phone and Ipod.

"The new family was a unit of consumption. The father provided the money, but the mother was in charge of the family's real purpose--spending." (10)
"Ads for new kitchen and cleaning appliances claimed that they liberated women from traditional drudgery. At the same time, these goods reaffirmed homebound duties" (15).

I find it interesting that a family can be defined by their consumption habits. A patriarchal family was historically the norm, yet the author is suggesting that the real power is in the hands of the woman because the woman is responsible for purchasing goods. The father simply makes the money. The mother, however, is in control. The consumer society had such an impact on society, that the norms of those days were reversed. Classes previously distinguished a certain way were no longer being recognized and fathers and mothers role in the house switched.
Consumer goods gave a family, and more specifically, each individual, an identity. As the author states, they were a "unit of consumption". Their purpose was to consume.

I find it also interesting in the second quote, that while many women were purchasing goods to rid themselves of these "homebound duties", they were contributing to it. With the women in charge of spending, does it also mean that they are in charge of utilizing these goods, of making sure things do not go to waste? If this is the case, then the traditional roles of a patriarchal family is re-established. If a woman is in charge of this spending, then they must also have to stay at home and use these products.

I think that the idea that consumerism could give people an identity is not debatable. Many of the ads were produced for this purpose, to give the consumer a feeling of identity and belonging with the product. However, I do think that the idea of a woman being in charge of spending, and this "reaffirmation of homebound duties" could be debatable.

I am sure that many people have grown up in a family where their parents may buy a certain product or brand-name, and now on their own they are buying the same products that they have grown up with. It could be an unconscious desire to keep with the identity they grew up with.

“Much advertising was one sided, selling goods with sophisticated and manipulative appeals. But ads also gave meaning to consumption, showing how products could be used to shape personal identity and social relationships… (9).relations were more impersonal and ephemeral but also more individualistic and even expressive. Products gave Americans ways of identifying themselves in groups when the old associations of family and neighborhood no longer worked.(12)”
Our society today is one built on advertising. We see something on TV, or in a magazine, and we immediately have to have it. There are very few products that we actually need, to get by day to day, but we are consumed by our desires and wants. We are a society of consumers, and we are told from the day we are born that more stuff is the key to our happiness, acceptance, and popularity. Americans believe that their identity comes from where they buy their goods and how expensive they are. A person who buys clothes from Walmart is viewed differently than someone who shops at expensive boutiques. This has created, in a sense, a middle class crisis. With the invention of mass production, we have been able to make luxury goods, only cheaper. The middle class has become obsesses with these cheap luxury goods as a way of showing those in the upper class they are just as good as them. We have become obsessed with keeping up with the jonses, because we believe we are defined by our external possessions and material goods. Even if it is beyond our means, we are consumed with obtaining more material goods. Because of the “buy now, pay later” credit system, so many Americans are currently facing debt. People are associating happiness with money, and this is far from the truth.

“Immigrant parents sometimes were intimidated by their children’s education and demanded their offsprings’ pay packets for family needs. In response, the second generation often criticized parents for their ignorance of good English and flaunted their Americanness with new clothes and entertainments.”

Having watched the video in class on Tuesday and read this article, it was clear to me that the rise of consumerism had an enormous impact on American society and everything we take for granted today. Connections between advertisement and psychology were made to attack the consumers self conscience; to convince the American people they needed items not vital to their survival in everyday life.

However, I had not thought about the impact of this consumerism on immigrants of America during the beginning of the 20th century. According to the article, “Jewish immigrants, who had little desire or opportunity to return to the ghettos and persecution that they had known in Europe, were often committed to forging a new American identity.” Just as purchasing the same brand name products allowed lower class Americans to assimilate into society with the more privileged, consumerism allowed immigrants comfort in an attempt to join the melting pot of the American society. This meant Jewish immigrants could invest in “the well-furnished parlor, crowned with a piano” just like the rest of America, while avoiding abandonment of their ethnic heritage or religious beliefs.

I thought that the author’s discussion on consumerism’s role in assimilation of immigrants were clear and agreeable. I believe the psychology behind brand name products and their role in helping groups assimilate can be applied to both lower class America and immigrants. Although economic status or ethnic background may be different, the fact that Americans are consuming the same products gives the people a sense of unity. In this sense, I believe the immigrants of America helped point out the significance of consumerism’s role in shaping the American society we know today.

"Clearing vast warehouses required more than brand name exposure or even selling innovation. It demanded that ads focus on consumers' needs and feelings. Increasingly the product itself took second place. Beginning about 1905, advertising innovators like Ernest Calkins advocated that modern psychology be used to link products with the desires and insecurities of consumers, thus creating a longing for particular items. (10)"

I picked this quotation because it made me reflect on a scene from the "Century of the Self". Edward Bernays paid debutantes to light up their "Torches of Freedom" in order to end the taboo of cigarette smoking for women. Bernays was feeding right into the insecurities of women, who felt less powerful than men and and quenching that desire with the solution of the cigarette which would be used as their "Torch of Freedom". Of course the whole idea plays on emotion, but it worked. Women did not need to spend money on cigarettes and in turn suffer the health consequences, but they were programmed to think that the small tobacco stick would be their ticket to some sort of equality.

I think it's amazing how many completely useless items are advertised and sold by targeting consumers insecurities and desires. No one wants to be the last one to get the newest electronic gadget. In fact, some find it necessary to camp outside of electronic stores so they can be the first(at least for a few hours) to own the latest "fill in the blank". While commercials have become so fantastical, making even the most ridiculous and useless items( i.e. The Snuggie) seem desirable. Advertisers are certainly digging into the minds of Americans in order to better understand how to create a demand for just about anything.

"While child-rearing experts like Sidonie Gruenberg told parents that children needed allowances to learn how to be cultivated consumers, toymakers discovered that children were enthusiastic shoppers: "an advertisement to a child had no barriers to climb, no scruples to overcome," noted a cynical trade magazine. Chidren were the future, and this meant that they had the right to make their own consumer choices."

I chose this quotation because I think it's fascinating how effective marketing to children is. Companies spend billions of dollars on advertisements to children because they are the future spenders in the world and they directly affect the consumer choices parents make. With fun colors, songs, and cartoons, it is easy to instill images of certain foods or toys in a child's mind. Ronald McDonald is a shining example of this.

I like that the author talked about children and consumerism because young people are a huge target for marketing. I wasn't aware that there was a child-rearing expert who told parents that children needed allowances. . . I had never really thought about how that system started. It just shows that advertising agencies try to hit their target from all angles, explaining that spending teaches responsibility, family values, and lets people express themselves.

"General Mills offered insecure homemakers, who might lack a trusted relative's guidance in modern cooking, the authority of Betty Crocker, an image of the ideal homemaker/home economist. This icon of domestic modernity changed in dress and face over the decades to reflect the times. She appeared not only on cake mix packages but also in pamphlets and on radio programs, dispensing practical advice about the modern kitchen."

I picked this quotation because of its profound impact on consumer society, especially on women even today. It didn't tell me anything I didn't know. Instead, it reinforced the idea of the "Female American Dream." This idea consists of the place of the female in society from the beginning of time. Always regarded as inferior to the male sex, the female has always been oppressed. However, in the 20th Century, the role of the female changed. The idea that women could have a more influential role in the household gave them power and purpose. This is why the concept of the ideal homemaker is important and images such as Betty Crocker were created to capsize on this newfound mentality.

The image of Betty Crocker has morphed into modern-day concepts that still project the desire to be the ideal homemaker. TV Shows and channels such as Home and Garden Television and the Food Network have nonstop programs that offer ways to attain this desired goal. Icons such as Martha Stewart glorify the mentality that in order for women to have a purpose, they must be successful housewives.

I think this concept is debatable in the sense that the ideal goal is the only thing that gives them purpose, because women have made leaps and bounds to reach the same level in society as men, and we are still getting closer even now. However, this 20th Century ideal undoubtedly had an impact on consumer society, and made it more material centered. The creation of icons and brands for products were clearly a successful way to increase consumer spending.

"Parents got their way, while indulging the child, when they bought the right stuff. Adults persuaded kids to do what was necessary (drink milk, wash their hands, or eat dinner) by favoring them with Thompson's Malted Milk, Lifebuoy soap 'wash-up charts,' or Squibb Chocolate Vitavose food additive."
After experiencing this theory first hand growing up in my house, I find that this particular thought is an imperative part of Cross's argument. The consumer mind set is now being taught to children through their parents disciplining strategies and techniques. When a child grows up knowing that they will get something (for example a new shirt, or a new toy) when they do well in school, or eat all their vegetables it becomes their mentality for life. Even as you grow up and move out of the house there will always be a need to be rewarded whenever you do well, and the older you become the easier it is to reward yourself for your own accomplishments. I can't even count how many times my friends, or I have said after receiving a good grade on a paper,"I want to go shopping downtown and reward myself by buying a new dress for tonight."
The amount of new dresses will continue to pile up, as will the need for consumer products as parents rely on "stuff" to get their children to behave. It honestly is somewhat embarrassing to see the radical change in the human race and our hypnotic dependence on material "things" in the past century. Although some people may enjoy this type of society, it has come to the point where we are controlled by the commercialism and always have the best brands, the newest styles, and shop at the most glamorous stores even though we may not be able to afford them. As more and more parents continue to raise their children with a consumer mindset,as my own parents did, the American materialist society will continue flourish.

"Listerine mouthwash became a necessity in the bathroom of millions of Americans when, in the 1920's, ads warned the insecure that 'halitosis' (offensive breath) unbeknownst to them could ruin their careers, love lives, and friendships unless prevented with daily use of Listerine. The Book of Etiqutte was sold with a similar pitch: 'Are you conscious of your crudities? Do you make friends easily? How would you take celery-asparagus-radishes? Unless you are absolutely sure of yourself, you will be embarrassed. And embarrassment cannot be concealed.'"

I picked this quotation to write about because I found it absolutely ridiculous to what extent companies and advertisements during this time would go to in order to pitch a particular product. Advertisements were no longer trying to appeal to consumers, they were trying to brainwash them. During this time, people were struggling to keep up with the times and fit in with those surrounding them. If an advertisement told a woman that she needed to feed her child a certain brand of cereal in order to be a good mother, she would most likely believe it. Companies began to personally attack their consumers, bringing aspects of their personal lives into the decision of whether or not to purchase a product.

As seen in this specific quote, the makers of Listerine claimed that if a person did not use their product, they would have bad breath as a result and possibly ruin their friendships, careers, and love lives. Another example can be seen in the article from the Parenting Magazine. In an attempt to increase the sale of girls' clothing, the article convinced mothers to let their daughters buy the clothes that they desired so that they could learn to express themselves and form an identity of their own. It claimed that, during such a difficult and impressionable time in a young girl's life, she should be able to buy the clothes necessary to "fit in" and keep up with the times.

Also during this time, the Separate Spheres ideology encouraged women to take charge in their own realm-the household- and not to interfere with the outside sphere of the workplace. Such obligations included, of course, to be a good mother and provide your children with a positive environment in which to grow. With such pressure, it is understandable that many women would give in to the ads for certain foods, clothing, instruments and other "necessary" goods- all of which were labeled as vital components to the healthy development of one's child.

I feel as though these persuasive tactics are still used by companies today while advertising their product, but perhaps not as intense. Nowadays, rather than trying to brainwash a consumer into buying a good, companies are more concerned with proving why their product is better than their competitor's product. This is due to the increasing amount of companies and products that are available in our society today.

"'Members of each stratum accept as their ideal of decency the scheme of life in vogue in the next higher stratum,' (Thorstein) Veblen observed. Mass consumption did not lead to an egalitarian community of affluent and secure citizens. Rather, competition for status and goods divided and often frustrated spenders" (4, column 2).

This is the nib and thrust of consumerism-- that need to be just one step above where one currently is in life. Consumer America's need for constant progress, constant self-betterment, these were and are the things that producers rely upon to keep their customers continuously consuming. No matter how comfortable or excessive one’s lifestyle was, there was always that next step up, always someone better off and more comfortable and excessive. This frantic race for supreme superfluity is exactly what drives the American consuming machine. The passage also points out the irony that in striving for this comfortable lifestyle, the consumer inevitably creates for himself a discomfort. The more discomfort, the harder he strives for comfort, and the harder he strives, the more discomfort he creates. It is a vicious circle.
It’s odd; I hadn’t thought of consumerism as such a force in and of itself. It seemed like a randomized thing sometimes need fueled, sometimes want fueled, and sometimes greed fueled. But it does make sense, that for the most part, the consumer is striving for that just out of reach status level for no other reason than because he is not there while someone else is. And this is not a blanket statement. It does not apply to everyone. There are the lucky few who buy out of necessity and occasionally for want by varying degrees (though the American view of necessity is highly skewed) and are more or less content with their station in life. But consumerism at its finest is simply and truly the need to keep up with the Jonses.

"Despite the demands of studying and long lists of college regulations, student life was organized around a peer culture. One midwestern university observer noted, "failure in studies is not as important to college students as failure in social adjustment" (13)

This quote jumped out at me because of my status as a college student today. It made me wonder, to what extent does this hold true in our current time? There certainly remains a peer culture, and peer pressure seems prevalent even on a college level. How many Isla Vistans feel pressured to drink because that's what their social circle does? If one DOESN'T party, does that limit their choices and options when it comes to entertainment? Often, making (and keeping) friends remains at the top of a students to-do list.

This new age of "fitting in" has only grown since it's conception in the early 1900's. Trends come and go, and as Americans we spend a good deal of time and money trying to keep up with them. Entire industries (such as fashion) have been founded upon humans desire to be part of the crowd, ironically claiming to show their individuality at the same time.

While the age of consumerism has certainly opened many new doors to leisure and fun, one must ask: How much extra work has this consumerism created as we try so hard to fit in with everyone else?

Whenever we hear or see experts talk about commercial goods and their development over the last century, we are often looking from the profitability perspective for both the suppliers and the consumers. However, the effects these commercial goods have on the tradition and culture values of their consumers, who are mostly second-generation immigrants, are usually ignored. As the massive immigration arrived in American during the turn of the twentieth century, most of these immigrants were generally poor and placed their values on working and earning money rather than living their lives to the fullest. On the contrary, children of these first generation immigrants had much closer contacts to the true American culture during which a period of rising commercial goods. Unlike their parents, these children desired novelty in every way, such as entertainment or other new goods. Promoted by an era of commercial goods, "new arenas of spending helped these children of immigrants establish their own identities." "By visiting amusement parks, dance halls....and by wearing new clothes and adopting new foods, second-generation immigrants distanced themselves from their parents while participating in American society."(12) These children, perhaps, often criticized parents for their ignorance of good English and flaunted their Americanness with new cloth and entertainment. This trend still seems to persist through the modern generations as they desire more and find other varies ways to, perhaps, show their "modern Americanness".

“…through goods and services, Americans found a way to understand themselves, others, the past, and the future…For good or ill, the consumerist system created meaning for Americans far more effectively than politics and civil society.” (p. 5)

I never noticed how much material things can define you or help in defining a person. The way you dress, the way you wear your hair, the daily activities you engage in are all components of you, and you can be easily judged or expressed by such goods and services. Although I feel many tend to deny it, you can predict someone’s personality by the way they dress and for the most part be correct. The services and goods we utilize and engage in are indeed an extension of ourselves.

I agree with the author in regards to services and goods having more meaning than politics and civil society. For one, services and goods are more relatable, as they are attached to universal emotions; for example, everyone knows what an IPod is, but does everyone know what the status of Healthcare in this country is? It is very disappointing facing this truth, but it is understandable because of the immediate and long-lasting emotional connections people form with services and goods.

"This was a painful ambiguous transition. Many older immigrants, upon settling in American cities, were anguished by the loss of culture, religious faith, family ties, and friendships" (p.12)

Although this piece was written for a time in our past, I find this argument still applicable and very pertinent to immigrants today. My parents have lived in the US for only 30 years and growing up in a Filipino-American culture is very different than growing up in just a Filipino culture. From food, fashion sense, and other pass times Filipino parents, like many immigrants in the past, felt the same anguish. Trying to keep their own culture as well as adapting to the American culture is and always will be a challenge. More importantly, the disconnection that the children feel with their parents is very much intact. Given that they are growing up in a society where certain behaviors, like going to the movies, are acceptable, they are the primary sources of frustration with immigrant parents. In my experiences growing up, I found that I had to jump many hurdles before I was allowed to do anything like go to the mall and shop with friends or ever going to the movies. Although I attribute much of my parent's strictness on the fact that I am a girl, I have also learned that part of their hesitation came from the fear of accepting American culture. Not only is it too liberal but it also challenges the values and traditions in which they grew up in.

“As important were the social and psychological meanings of commodities, created by the magic of modern retailing environments, packaging, and promotion… These stores took on the aura of churches (29)”.

I thought the comparison between department stores and churches was interesting. In a society were political involvement was rapidly declining one would assume people to turn to religion for personal comfort. In this situation, consumerism became the new faith. The image of a massive department store with elegant window displays and marble columns certainly imitates that of the traditional Catholic churches and cathedrals (think Notre Dame) with broad naves and glistening stain glass windows covering the walls.

I think this argument is just one of many important points Cross conveys to his readers to reinforce the impact of consumerism on life during the 1900s. It was not just a small fad that affected the upper elite, it encompassed anyone and everyone living in American society and the effects are certainly long-lasting. Although malls may no longer have quite the same aura as they did sixty years ago, the idea of the emotional and spiritual appeal of consumer goods is still well alive today.

“In 1916, Piggly Wiggly opened the first self-service grocery store, relying on packaging to sell from open shelves and thus eliminating the need for a clerk to fetch foodstuffs from behind a counter. It also tempted the impulse buyer to fill the new shopping basket.”

I found this quote and the rest of its paragraph very informative and interesting. I did not know that there were no brand names or choices of what product you buy, nor did I know that the customer had to ask the clerk to go and get them the product they wanted. This seems like a very inconvenient and invasive method of shopping, especially since the idea of buying personal items from the clerk could be quite embarrassing. I find it interesting now that there are even “self check-out” lanes to avoid any kind of confrontation or embarrassment with a clerk at the supermarket. As expected, eliminating the need to talk to a sales clerk promoted more shopping, and more impulse buying without the same intimidation. This new feel for shopping encouraged free spending and for that reason alone it is still effective today. Now with the internet becoming so accessible, people can purchase items online without even leaving one’s home and avoid any type of social interaction until it arrives at their house. I don’t know how much easier shopping can be, but I do not doubt that there will be a new form of shopping in the future which even avoids the time delay from when you purchase the item to when it arrives; anything to make it a more profitable industry will inevitably occur.

"Many older immigrants, upon settling in American cities, were anguished by the loss of culture, religious faith, family ties, and friendships...The foreign-born, however, often tried to preserve ethnic and religious traditions against the threat or temptation of American materialism" (p.12)

The author makes a clear distinction of the generational divide that exists in America because of evolving materialism. I thought that this quote was a strong illustration of how age dictated how one might receive the new age of consumerism. For every teenage couple that drove their new family car to the dance hall, there were worried parents who felt threatened by this new culture. I think that the argument the author makes is important to note: not everyone welcomed consumerism with open arms.

In the public's eye, it might be easy to conclude that consumerism has acted as a valuable stimulus to our nation both economically and socially. Nonetheless, the hesitation for some to adopt this new America is a reminder of materialism's often overlooked flaws. This article brings to mind the kind of division that consumerism can create as material possessions take priority and traditional culture is eroded.

This quote brings to light the other side of consumerism's story that often goes unnoticed. In doing so, it reminds everyone that consumerism isn't necessarily an easy transition from traditional culture. The tension and divisions it creates still exist today and continue to wear away at some pretty important values.

"While new urban 'luxuries' tore many from the rigors of pioneer life, the frontier survived in the acquisitive and individualistic personality of the modern American. While the new culture of spending gave identity to individuals, it also redefined the meaning of democracy in a nation where political involvement was in sharp retreat."
I never really thought of American society being characterized as individualistic this early in American history. Until reading this I did not realized the social emphasis that was once based on consumerism during this time. I had never viewed consumerism as something that could give “ identity to individuals’.
For instance, it made me think more about what the phrase “ keeping up with the Jones’” and what that meant in early American society. I did not realized consumerism was so deeply rooted in American history. I had never thought about the significance of formation of social classes through consumerism. I thinking it is really interesting to see class distinctions emerge. Today in America, possessions are often stronger cues of social status than family heritage, and I never stopped to think how this came to be. This article also made me thoroughly consider the social impacts of technological developments, such as the automobile. For example, until now I never really considered early model automobiles as symbols of distinction between the have and have nots.

"Consumer culture redefined youth, transitioning it from mostly a period of growth and transition to family and work responsibilities into a time of membership in a distinct consumption community." pg. 13

This quote is interesting in that it not not affects people my age, but I made a statement i never even thought about. Being a youth in the 1800s was drastically different from being a youth in the 1900s. However this quote is not completely correct. Youth identity did not completely change into a consumer based world. Consumption was merely an assistance into the transition of the family and work life. It eased the transition and at the same time created something new for the youth, free time and fun activities. While youth of the 1800s were very focused on working from a very young age, youth in the growing 1900s had a lot more free time since their parents now made a bit more money and they were schooling more. Instead of plowing from dawn till dusk, the youth of the 1900s were going to movies, amusement parks, dates, and outings with their friends.

This quote is important for the argument of the piece because it shows how deeply consumption changed american society. It was not just outward appearance or buying more things, american ways of living and even moral values and traditions were completely changed also. We no longer have the youth who meets with his lover in the parlor with the watchful eye of the parents, but rather a new concept which the people a hundred years back would find appalling, extreme privacy for the unmarried couple. This to me, is one of the biggest changes in life for the immigrant and native american families.

"The myth of mobility often was more humiliating to the relatively poor American than permanent low status would have been to a member of of a caste society. Low income and a dead-end job was clearly the 'penalty for and the proof of personal failure.'"

This quote underscores the inherent irony of the American Dream; while upward mobility was touted as the defining characteristic of the United States, it was rarely attainable. This facade of wealth, the social symbols and the illusion of having broken free from one's ancestral heritage and having become a "somebody" became so ingrained in the American psyche that to NOT have these societally-imposed status symbols would be akin to having utterly failed as a person. To some, this is more frustrating than being stuck at an undesirable cast.

Literary responses to this phenomenon includes the Willy Loman-esque antiheroes as well as a reinvention of the American Dream by journalists like Hunter S. Thompson, whose quest to find the American Dream involves finding himself in the depths of a depraved ether frolic in Las Vegas -- using an assumed identity to prove supreme personal freedom as the essential component of the American Dream.

"Consumer goods were liberating in ways that other expressions of self and society were not. Unlike racial or even class characteristics, cars and foods as well as hats and clothes could be put on and taken off, depending on social and psychological circumstances."

I think that this is a very interesting comment in regards to the idea that the American consumer was created. Advertisements began to market the lifestyle of their products instead of the product themselves, which created whole new cultures of consumption. If one wanted to fit in in a certain social situation, they might need to buy a certain car or type of clothing.

There is something called turning money into status that refers to when people use their paper wealth to buy luxury goods in order to show their status to those around them. This was reinforced into American culture by the events of the early 20th century, and has remained a big part of our consumer culture to this day. Buying a car is no longer about the car, but rather about the lifestyle that car entails. And furthermore, people had the ability to show only certain things to certain people; they change hats for different social engagements, and can live much different lives depending on their dress and situation. This new type of consumerism can be compared to the traditional consumption model in which people procure things when they need them, and once the change was made we haven't gone back.

"This focus on youth helped resolve a growing family tension. Early twentieth-century parents were frustrated at how childhood had changed since they were young. Teenagers no longer made an obvious transition to worlds of family and work responsibility under the watchful eyes of parents or paternalistic employers. Child labor at home or in outside jobs had become far less common, especially in the middle classes. Instead, youth had become increasingly a time of play and spending that adults did not fully control. Still, parents found opportunities for influencing their offspring by making compromises with the new culture of youth."

This quote appeals to me because it is a perfect description of the issue that I know my parents are concerned with almost daily. Growing up my dad explained the differences from the way he grew up to my brother and I, highlighting the "uphill both ways in the snow" walk to school or the 5 a.m. paper route he had in just the 6th grade. Although I've had part time jobs in high school and a few full time jobs in summer, I know that this consumer society I've grown up in has trained me to desire. I unfortunately have to admit most of my work money has gone to needs and not wants...

Thomas3
"This was a painful ambiguous transition. Many older immigrants, upon settling in American cities, were anguished by the loss of culture, religious faith, family ties, and friendships" (p.12)

I chose this quote because it opened my eyes to the true power and consequences of living in a consumer society. The fact that immigrants are coming here and noticing the lack of culture, religious faith, and family ties proves that we are moving away from being human beings because all of these things lost are what separate us from animals. All though we are not turning into animals it is evident to me that we as a society are turning into robots brainwashed by constant advertisement on this earth solely for the purpose of making money for business executives.

"In 1927, the US built 85 percent of the world's automobiles, and by 1929 there was one car for every five Americans (better than one for every three in California). These figures are fantastic, especially when compared with Europe: there was only one car for every 43 Britons and one for every 335 Italians" ("Setting the Course" p.26).

This quote is particularly interesting to me because it shows a startling contrast between production and consumption in the US back in the 1920's compared to the 2000's. The US is no longer building 85% of the world's automobiles, yet I would estimate that we still out-number many countries in the amount of cars that are in our country. This presents a concern that applies to many industries in the US. We are using and consuming more than our share of goods and resources, yet we are not producing enough to sustain ourselves. Reading the article and selecting this quote reminded me of this dilemma. It is still a controversial issue now, because many people feel that we can simply work with other countries to make up for our excessive demand for goods instead of evaluating our own needs. Of course many people recognize the need for self-sustainability as a country and are working for change. However, it is interesting to note that back when the consumer society was being formed as the article explains, we seemed to meet our own consumption and production demands much more than we currently do.

"If consumer culture leveled social differences and gave individuals the freedom to define themselves, is also reflects an American society divided by class and burdened by its 'hidden injuries.' Shopping was sometimes a defensive reaction to insults from the class above or an offensive response to the intrusion of the class below" (p. 4).

The expansion of American consumer culture in the early 1900s, albeit consumption in general, is often associated with a rising standard of living and a homogenization of, at least, the middle stratum of socio-economic classes. This is, at least, the association I had made with regards to the expansion of American consumer culture. The rise of consumerism, however, initiated a covert new form of class warfare, resulting in a subtle reinforcement of economic stratification. Expressly, the ability to afford certain houses or furniture differentiated economic classes from one another. Everything from the purchase of luxury cars to owning a particular style of home asserted one’s financial status, and could simultaneously be justified as merely an assertion of one’s individual freedom. This sense of individualism promulgated in parallel with the decline of ethnic and neighborhood loyalties and was catalyzed by the ‘myth of [economic] mobility’ (p. 4). In short, society was made no more egalitarian by consumerism than by any other facet of American culture; consumerism was merely a new and less overt medium for the expression of exclusivity and aristocracy (except in the case of the conspicuous nouveau riche).

“Trademarks – from the stereotyped black cook on Aunt Jemima pancake mix to the simply white and red Campbell’s Soup label design – persuaded customers to demand branded products from retailers. Packages seduced shoppers with the subliminal appeal of their color and shape and made them loyal customers with the predictable favor and feel of their contents.”

Advertising is something that I find very interesting because it is such a significant aspect of consumer society. It is frightening to think about major name-brand companies controlling and seducing the unconscious minds of consumers through advertisement and labeling. I am aware that trademarks and brand names have given companies the ability to dominate an industry and bring in huge amounts of revenue. However, I haven’t thought about labeling and brand names as a way of seduction or evoking emotional attachment. Cross also mentions that “the secret success of consumerism was that these messages to self and others were so layered, complex, and hidden.” I don’t know enough about advertising to debate this, but his argument about the complexity and obscurity of advertising is fascinating but again frightening. It scares me to think that the most powerful component of advertising and consumerism is the manipulation of a part of our minds that we cannot control.

"The growth of the consumer society coincided with the decline of self-sufficiency, neighborhoodliness, and family interactions. It replaced traditional and social roles and identities with those purchased in the market. The point is not that Americans had more goods and were happy with a system that delivered them; rather, the key point is that through goods and services, Americans found a way to understand themselves, others, the past and the future." pg 5

I thought this quotation was interesting because it clearly pinpointed a relationship between consumerism and a changing American society. While it has often been noted I found it intriguing to think about how traditional roles and identities were replaced with bought goods, and even more interesting that this information is backed up with various examples including the car, low-budget luxury goods, and electric items.

However, I personally feel that the authors last line of the quotation: "the key point is that through goods and services, Americans found a way to understand themselves, others, the past, and the future" is more confusing than simplistic. In fact, from the article itself it appeared to me that this large-scale consumerism only led many to "search" for themselves in unfulfilling, simplistic ways. It is unclear to me how items such as the Model T Ford helped one "understand" them-self.

"While the new culture of spending gave identity to individuals, it also redefined the meaning of democracy in a nation where political involvement was in sharp retreat. Voting in national elections had declined from 80 percent in the 1890s to less than 50 percent by the 1920s."

First off, this quote shows me something about the new consumer society that I did not really ever think off. Up to this point in American society patriotism has been a staple for our society, the love and caring for the direction of our country. With this new found importance for having all the necessary and unnecessary goods, many American's, nearly half, have lost sight in what our countries ultimate goal is. Instead, the politics at this time are centered around labor legislation. This makes sense due to the increasing amount that Americans spend. The center of democracy is now not of freedom and liberty, but is focused on how individuals, unions, and corporations can get the most bang for their buck. I believe that this is very important in displaying the change that took place in the 20th century, which did not only change economics, but as shown here it changed politics as well. The new ideology of the free market was so strong that it changed the ideology of the nation politically.

“Still, a fundamental change had occurred since the days of court aristocracies and sumptuary laws: in 1900, almost any labor, service or property, no matter how low in status, could be converted into money to purchase the latest dress or flashy suit. Social status and birth were no longer relevant in this ultimate democracy of spending.” 4

I thought this quotation was interesting because in today’s society consumerism appears to correlate primarily with social classes, highlighting the differences between upper and lower classes whether it be differences in fashion, type of car you’re driving, or the extravagance of your home. This quotation shows a different aspect of consumerism, the concept that consumerism created the ability to transcend social classes, with commodities providing the opportunity for all classes to choose to display what they would like to. In previous societies, social structures delegated your way of life and in most cases were not open to discussion. Systems such as the caste system in India were very rigid and members were born into their class. Consumerism centered around mass production and therefore did not discriminate against who the buyers were but rather aimed at increasing the amount of customers they pulled in. Although it may not have been as common due to financial restraints, members of the lower classes were given the opportunity to purchase the same quality items as those of the upper classes, a revolutionary development at this time in history.

"Instead, new white-collar employees increasingly won status and a sense of betterment through their consumption and leisure activities rather than their work" p. ?

I think it is safe to say that that quote essentially encapsulates what is wrong with society today. With industrialization came a slew of positives, but even more negatives. Yes, everyone could now afford shoes and microwaves and cars. But in the end, we've become a society of instant (and unearned) gratification which is strongly linked to consumerism, which has been shaped by industrialization and government. We have been told to want, and what to want. We are supposed to want a beautiful house, with with large grassy lawns, cars, china sets, and memberships to the country club. It doesn't really matter what you do (to a certain extent), but how you live your life. This idea is especially prominent in today's "Hollywood scene". So many "celebrities" have made big bucks selling their souls to MTV. Lauren Conrad for example. I personally have nothing again her and am sure that she is a perfectly capable and nice person. However, it irks me to think that for her to succeed and be as rich as she is now, was to be on a slew of "reality" shows. She happened to be 18 and attending a high school in Laguna beach and therefore, happened to be signed onto a reality show. Then she "happened" to get an internship at Teen Vogue, and "happened" to do really well and now has her own clothing line. Now, personally I think she is smart and has made her way into the fashion industry with minimal efforts, which I'm sure many people would do if the opportunity was presented. However, what has she REALLLY done to earn her celebrity status? No one really cares what she does, but that she wears nice clothes, and has beautiful famous friends. And it's not just LC, it's also Audrina Patridge, anyone who was ever on the Real World, Paris Hilton, Brody Jenner, the Kardashians, etc. No one understand the value of work anymore, because we have been trained to not care about it. We all have been trained to have nice things and lives luxurious lives. Unfortunately, it's so deep rooted that it's hard to not consciously think of it as a problem. And I believe that I am also part of this larger problem. I want to make lots of money and do lots of fun things with lots of fun pretty people. I guess that makes me a hypocrite.

“Name brands did more than create dominant companies. They also served to democratize American life at a time when social differences were extreme. Relatively homogeneous products were sold everywhere and to everyone no matter their ethnicity or job: “Purchasing consumer goods came to be an important attribute shared by… diverse peoples.”8

I chose this quotation because the concept of name brands has stayed the same since it first began in the 1990’s. For the most part consumerism relies on branding the products they buy because they feel that just because it has a certain name, that it is the best product even though the two are identical except for its label. When clothes are considered, name brands really do dominate the market. With a well known name, companies can mark up the prices because they are fully aware that the consumers will pay up that extra cost for many reasons, particularly to conform to what everyone looks like, rather than be “different.” Previous to this reading, I had not grasped the point that minorities could gain a sense of unity with the mass by buying what they do. Anyone is allowed to buy whatever they want without any restrictions, and therefore there is no product that cannot be sold to a single group unless money is the barrier. Everyone bought what everyone else had and it became a continuous process of this consumerist society. Buy being able to buy a particular name brand, consumers felt that the product gave them meaning and acceptance. It is just interesting to note that although name brands still dominate the market industry today, with the current recession, there has been a slight shift in that buying products is more focused on the price more than anything else.

"The myth of mobility was often more humiliating to the relatively poor American than permanent low status would have been to a member of a caste society. Low income and a dead-end job was clearly 'the penalty for and the proof of personal failure.'" This quote caught my attention more than others due to the fact that it seems as if this was the first time the history of consumerism where personal failure was relative to wealth, as opposed to status or heritage in a society. It was no longer about who you were related to, but the focus had shifted to how much "stuff" one's job would allow for them to consume. The article, along with the documentary, opened my eyes to view consumerism in a way that I had never done before, and I don't know if that is a good or bad thing.

“While these were hardly all American inventions, the United States was poised to take advantage of them on a massive scale. This young nation had just completed a century of unprecedented progress, conquering and unifying an “empty” continent of extraordinary fertility (compare with Australia). This was hardly a painless process: native cultures were crushed, traditional ways of life were cast aside for the machine age and the modern market, and far more dreams of riches were dashed than were fulfilled. But in 1900, the United States was already the richest country in human history-and well situated to create far more wealth” (page 1)
This isn’t something that I didn’t know but I am glad that the article brought up how a nation so young improved so fast and so efficiently. This part also emphasized how the United States robbed people of their land, and brought forth mass production of several products which they were not the originators of.
What the author said is definitely true, the United States did right on the coattails of other countries in order to strive and survive. It took a land that was populated by natives and in a way stole it and robbed it of its goods and resources. This country was able to get past a lot of the problems that happened in other countries because of the attitude society had toward mass production and consumption.
I feel that is something worth talking about because I feel that this was a country built on competition. A country that was built on the failures of many and the huge success and monopolies of others. This is one of the sole reasons why this country succeeded so much in such a short time.

"Americans before modern consumerism surely were no expert communicators, and cars, fashion fads, or record collections certainly did not destroy people's capacity to relate to one another or to their history. The truth instead is that modern consumption helped individuals contend with social conflict and ambiguity, evade clear-cut choices, and even hold contradictory desires." (Bottom of Page 3)

Although this particular quote was a little unclear to me, it did articulate some important things. In the rise of consumerism, the individual was no longer judged only by his or her skin color, gender, class, or moral fiber. Instead there was the advent of an additional element: the things a person possessed. This new mode of expression was a form of communication that could be heard much easier and recognized far wider than previous mediums of individual expression. Clothing, cars, furniture, and household goods all said something about who one was as an individual. As class lines began to become blurred with the rise of the middle sect, having a identity through one's things gave allowed the masses to deal with the loss of a more clear-cut social hierarchy. It also gave people hope for a better future, as many consumer commodities did not seem entirely out of reach for a good deal of Americans.
The author also seems to imply that consumer goods act almost as a sedative, allowing people to forget greater social and political issues when they have so many leisure products and activities to be consumed at home. The author also writes about the contradictory desire to have a simple life, rooted in old-fashioned ideals, while still enjoying the conveniences of modernity.
Today, this superficial way of self-expression seems to have taken full hold in American society as individuals are likely to be assessed initially through their belongings.

"Now redemption was from loneliness of the city and the business rat race. Consumption relieved the pain of increasingly meaningless labor" (Top left of page 3).

I disagree with the author's statement that twentieth century Americans could find solace in consumer goods. Some may have tried to substitute human relations and meaning for goods, but at best goods were a substitute. The author later contradicts himself by demonstrating how consumer goods created a feeling of needing to "keep up with the Jones." Consumption reinforced the rat race, so that it was not contained to the work force, but also extended into a competition of whom owned what.

Symbolic goods also helped ordinary shy people avoid self-disclosure. They aided immigrants, the young, the newly urbanized, or the simply insecure to avoid the humiliation of being nobodies and the anxiety of facing a world of strangers. As a nation of newcomers, Americans had special needs for hats, shoes, foods, and cars to help them "place themselves advantageously and to get on briskly." (top of page 4)

The objects that you have the ability to purchase play a significant role in what social class you belong to because they are physical representations of the amount of money you have. This quote highlights the idea of hiding with in a class that one does not necessarily belong to. I was aware that people try to improve their status by wearing certain clothes and other items. I had not realized the role this could play for those that are immigrants to America. I have never moved to a different country but i can imagine that you would feel out of place because you are no longer where you grew up. Consumer American has helped with the transition for immigrants because they no longer have to feel like strangers and can assimilate into American culture and dress more easily.

If immigrants were to look more American when they came to the country they would receive a more inviting welcome. People are accustomed to what they are used to. When a male immigrant from India comes to America looking like a regular American guy with pants and a t shirt appear to be a regular guy. Although if he were to dress in a robe and where a turban he would look more out of place and more like a stranger to the country. It is very interesting how the consumption of goods in American has affected the transition of immigrants to the country.

"Fashion and cosmetics also gave young women fresh identities and distance from family. As Jane Addams, a leading social worker from Chicago observed, 'The working girl, whose family lives in a tenement... who has little social standing and has to make her own place, knows full well how much habit and style of dress has to do with her position... Her clothes are her background, and from them she is largely judged.'" (Page 13)

This reminds me of the video we say on Tuesday about Bernays and Freud. Bernays was using social control to sell products and promote consumerism. I find this interesting because it is exactly what our consumer society is based on presently. The video showed a woman speaking about how to express individuality through dress yet people were telling consumers what to buy and how to dress. This is what is going on in our society right now. Celebrities that wear certain clothes or dresses on the streets or to award shows everyone wants to wear to look like them. I myself have found myself suckered into this type of consumer control. Sometimes things I see in magazines on celebrities I think I absolutely have to have. Hopefully I will get better about not feeling this way and view it as a form of social control. Besides, most of these items do not look the same on me as they do in the magazines.

“‘The housewife of the future will be neither a slave to servants nor herself a drudge. She will give less attention to the home, because the home will need less; she will be rather a domestic engineer than a domestic laborer, with the greatest of all handmaidens, electricity, at her service.’” (16)

In this passage the writer quotes Thomas Edison who argues that the invention of electricity, a new consumer good, would free women from the dull and tedious chores that bound them to the home. I believe that this statement is important because it expands the writer’s central argument. That is, consumerism has transformed not only society as a whole, but also the lives of individuals within a very diverse nation. Consumer goods like the washer and dryer, the stove, and the vacuum have expanded the role of women in society. These goods drastically minimized time spent on tending to the home and contributed to more leisure time. More leisure time meant more opportunities for women. Instead of being restricted to the role of housewife, a woman now had the choice to pursue a career or an education.

I think that this expansion of the roles of women is imperative to the balance of gender within our society. Consumerism, by freeing up women's time, allowed them to explore new opportunities, to educate themselves, and to challenge men in the workforce. Although I don’t spend much time tending to housework, I am very thankful to these consumer goods because they have allowed me to pursue a college education whereas in the past, a woman might not have had the option to do so.

"This soft drink was invented in 1886 by the Atlanta druggist John Pemberton, but it became the refreshment of choice across the land soon after Asa Candler bought controlling shares in 1891. Using Massive advertising, wide-ranging distribution, and a simple but striking trademarked label and bottle shape, Candler transformed Coca-cola into a national soft drink. Indeed, Coke came to symbolize American consumerism. As early as 1929, it was sold in 66 countries. Candler created a mystique about the drink's secret formula."
I have always loved Coke. I drank it without thinking about how much I actually loved those polar bears or how the coke commercials were, in my opinion, amazingly entertaining works of art. Coke was my favorite soft drink.
I did not even find it weird or disgusting that Coke was developed by a druggist. Was I not essentially drinking cough medicine? Cough medicine with tons of sugar?
Coke's secret formula and their ads might have had more of an attraction for me; my parents never kept soft drinks in the house, and only rarely did my dad, whose favorite soda was also Coke, buy a two-liter for the fridge.
When I first visited China as a boy, I remember feeling intrigued by the Coke ads in Chinese. I also remembered my relatives all drank Coke, and Coke seemed popular in the region.
Coke is the symbol of American, if not global, consumerism. The Coke icon is instantly recognizable and meaningful to the people seduced by its mystique. Coke is a prime example of successful advertising, and manipulation of the masses through their commercials and quotes.

"As important, consumer goods were liberating in ways that other expressions of self and society were not. Unlike racial or even class characteristics, cars and food as well as hats and clothes could be put on and taken off, depending on social and psychological circumstances.” (First sentence, last paragraph, page 3)

I find it interesting how the importance of consumer goods, especially in the way that one presents them self, has grown so immensely since the early 20th century. The main purpose of clothing at one point was for protection, warmth and modesty, but it has now become a form of expression. In a world were we hold little control over the situation in which we are placed, what family we are born into or what color skin we have, clothing can allow for a constant flux in the image of ourselves that we present. More than the products themselves, people have become addicted to the sense of power that comes with consumption. To the extent that your income allows, you can choose the message you send out through what you wear in a way that many other aspects of life make impossible. He never ending changing trends move forward, mirroring the constant march forward of our society and growth. Even on the individual level this progress can be seen as children turn to adult. As they struggle to find out who they are fashion can play an important role. We are told not to judge a book by it’s cover but it is undeniable that outward appearance does have a large impact on the way we are percieved by others.

While many businesses thrive greatly on this, I feel that our reliance on fashion as an expressive outlet has become over emphasized. Its value can be appreciated, but at the same time there are many other ways to find out who a person is. The power we feel from this control and ability to adapt to different circumstances simply by what we wear can only go so deep. Really knowing oneself inside and out and finding ways to express that self with out being manipulated by media and advertising will allow for a much more significant sense of self.

“The growth of the consumer society coincided with the decline of self-sufficiency, neighborliness, and family interactions.”

Cross outlines the history of consumerism in the United States. With the boom in production brought on by the factory system, more average Americans could afford items that were previously conceived as luxuries. The result would not be a class system based on genetics or accumulated wealth, but a system based on differentiating consumer labels. As credit became popular, class lines became blurred along the fringes, resulting in a constant competition to keep up with the status quo. This individual battle to consume outweighs “neighborliness”. The constant pursuit of disposable income also effects the family dynamic.
In a country that locks its doors and loads its guns, the decay of neighborliness is apparent. However what isn't as apparent is our ability to be self sufficient. Granted as a nation the United States cannot resort back to its rural roots. However a general lack of knowledge concerning basic needs in a modern society like: changing the oil, cooking a balanced meal or laying concrete, demonstrates that even self-sufficiency in a modern sense is absent in today's society. When a nation is forced only to consume, it ends up drawing on other nations to quench consumer needs. Instead we should probably increase our “modern self-sufficiency” and curb our imperialistic consumer habits.

“To consume took on a whole new meanings. American prosperity gave quite ordinary citizens cars, electric gadgets, telephones, and ready- to-wear fashions for which Europeans masses would have to wait until mid-century.”
The outline of American consumerism was built early on during the turn of the century. These early beginnings helped outline the creation of a society built solely upon consumerism. I found this quote interesting because it helps exhibit the mirror of consumerism present even to this date between industrial countries such as the United States and Europe. Although Europe has gained much ground in terms of economic and technological advancements, we still see Europe as much less consumer based than the United States. This discrepancy is due to the fact that the United States was at the forefront of consumerism. Along with the notion of the “American Dream” it became clear that the notion “more is better.” This lifestyle was perpetuated by the ongoing advancements in technology and thus availability to the general public.

On the other hand, this is the beginning of the American decline of democracy. As stated the American voting population had declined. This may have been due to the fact that Americans were now being kept busy and happy by consumer needs. On the other hand, Europe even today is known for the sharp activism and social push in the political spectrum. Consumerism became a powerful tool in keeping people happy and making them worry less about political affairs and more about their own well being and wealth.

In case you have Christian Louboutin Replica in your mind, expect the rates for the pieces to be more reasonably priced. People, though are skeptical of putting on a replica, so one must know the advantage that such items carry, especially when they are bought from a good replica store like Replica Handbags.

Thanks for your visiting this www.replicaseller.com/replica-pens online store.

I wanted to subscribe to rss feed coz i read a few articles here and seriously liked them, but i don't think your subscription works. or i'm doing something wrong...

Who in hades guessed constructing a mosque at ground zero seemed to be a good suggestion? I am not much of a great fan of both Glen Beck or Sarah Palin on the other hand in contrast with Obama and the supremely stupid administration, these are geniuses, get real The states, there is a little strange stuff going on. Barbara.