Study Questions What is the typical academic critique of consumerism? Shopping is an insatiable mental disease in which consumerism is a substitute for a lack of fulfilling the basic human needs—love, belonging, creativity, personal distinction, and a sense of accomplishment. Why does Twitchell disdain the academic critique of consumerism? He is too out of touch with popular culture, Twitchell contends.
Download PDF Of all the strange beasts that have come slouching into the 20th century, none has been more misunderstood, more criticized, and more important than materialism. Who but fools, toadies, hacks, and occasional loopy libertarians have ever risen to its defense?
The world of commodities appears so antithetical to the world of ideas that it seems almost heresy to point out the obvious: The really interesting question may be not why we are so materialistic, but why we are so unwilling to acknowledge and explore what seems the central characteristic of modern life.
When the French wished to disparage the English in the 19th century, they called them a nation of shopkeepers. When the rest of the world now wishes to disparage Americans, they call us a nation of consumers. And they are right.
We are developing and rapidly exporting a new material culture, a mallcondo culture. To the rest of the world we do indeed seem not just born to shop, but alive to shop.
Americans spend more time tooling around the mallcondo—three to four times as many hours as our European counterparts—and we have more stuff to show for it. According to some estimates, we have about four times as many things as Middle Europeans, and who knows how much more than people in the less developed parts of the world.
The quantity and disparity are increasing daily, even though, as we see in Russia and China, the "emerging nations" are playing a frantic game of catch-up. This burst of mall-condo commercialism has happened recently—in my lifetime—and it is spreading around the world at the speed of television.
The average American consumes twice as many goods and services as in ; in fact, the poorest fifth of the current population buys more than the average fifth did in Little wonder that the average new home of today is twice as large as the average house built in the early years after World War II.
We have to put that stuff somewhere—quick! Sooner or later we are going to have to acknowledge the uncomfortable fact that this amoral consumerama has proved potent because human beings love things.
In fact, to a considerable degree we live for things. In all cultures we buy things, steal things, exchange things, and horde things. From time to time, some of us collect vast amounts of things, from tulip bulbs to paint drippings on canvasses to matchbook covers.
Often these objects have no observable use.
We live through things. We create ourselves through things. And we change ourselves by changing our things. In the West, we have even developed the elaborate algebra of commercial law to decide how things are exchanged, divested, and recaptured.
Remember, we call these things "goods," as in "goods and services. Our commercial culture has been blamed for the rise of eating disorders, the spread of "affluenza," the epidemic of depression, the despoliation of cultural icons, the corruption of politics, the carnivalization of holy times like Christmas, and the gnat-life attention span of our youth.
All of this is true. But it is by no means the whole truth. Commercialism is more a mirror than a lamp. In demonizing it, in seeing ourselves as helpless and innocent victims of its overpowering force, in making it the scapegoat du jour, we reveal far more about our own eagerness to be passive in the face of complexity than about the thing itself.
Anthropologists tell us that consumption habits are gender-specific. Men seem to want stuff in the latent and post-midlife years. Boys amass playing marbles first, Elgin marbles later. Women seem to gain potency as consumers after childbirth, almost as if getting and spending is part of a nesting impulse.
Historians, however, tell us to be careful about such stereotyping. Although women are the primary consumers of commercial objects today, they have enjoyed this status only since the Industrial Revolution.
Certainly in the pre-industrial world men were the chief hunter-gatherers. If we can trust works of art to accurately portray how booty was split and cultural historians such as John Berger and Simon Schama think we canthen males were the prime consumers of fine clothes, heavily decorated furniture, gold and silver articles, and of course, paintings in which they could be shown displaying their stuff.
Once a surplus was created, in the 19th century, women joined the fray in earnest. They were not duped. The hegemonic phallocentric patriarchy did not brainwash them into thinking goods mattered.
The Industrial Revolution produced more and more things not simply because it had the machines to do so, and not because nasty producers twisted their handlebar mustaches and whispered, "We can talk women into buying anything," but because both sexes are powerfully attracted to the world of things.Two Cheers for Consumerism Two Cheers for Consumerism In the article called 2 cheers for consumerism, the writer Twitchell explains how people, the .
Person’s welfare is not View Notes - Materialism and consumption from ENGL Whether we know it or not, materialism Professional graduate thesis writing service was designed to meet the needs of graduate students - the guarantee that your graduate Two Cheers For Materialism in our lives.
In his essay “Two Cheers for Materialism” James Twitchell discusses the history, location, and impact materialism has had on society.
With the use of the view points from many academics and historical figures, Twitchell offers insight into materialism’s effect on how we function in today’s world.
Free two cheers for materialism james twitchell papers, essays, and research papers. Accusations of materialism in science tend to confuse two differing meanings of the word: Ontological materialism is the belief, or assumption, that only material matter and energy exist.
For the ontological materialist anything immaterial must be the product of the material. Materialism as Twitchell says in his essay “Two Cheers for Materialism” is not always bad, but to me it depends on how bad a person wants materialistic t It looks like you've lost connection to our server.