From the mouths of babes: dangerous addictions
“In 1983 companies spent $100 million annually advertising to children. By the end of the boom they were spending more than $17 billion. Each year children aged two to eleven see more than 25,000 television advertisements. [...] Children now begin to recognise corporate logos when they are as young as six months. A British study found that for one in four children the first recognisable work they utter is a brand name.”
- Clive Hamilton, Requiem for a Species: why we resist the truth about climate change (Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 2010), 86-87.
Parents worry about keeping their kids away from illegal drugs, and rightly so. Addictions to certain substances can ruin lives. But perhaps we ought to be more concerned about the industry designed to get our children addicted to compulsive consumption. In this addiction, the lives ruined will not just be their own.
Posts
22 comments:
Those stats are truly terrifying. One of the things we notice not having a telly is that we buy the same things in the supermarket week after week... its only when we see an ad break that we realise that there are all these new products.
Hannah's current phrase of the month is "see... that [mad development in technology] is just proof that we [UK etc] should stop where we are until the rest of the world has caught up!" - obviously some implications for "one planet" living there, but an interesting thought.
(I appreciate the irony that supermarkets are probably part of the problem)
Amen Byron.
That's a nice tank you have.
I also agree with your/Hamilton's point.
We live sans tv, though we can watch dvds on our computer. I was so glad that my son's toddler hood was spent without a telly and tv advertising, he was completely oblivious to all of that. He now thinks tv is inferior to dvds because he can't choose what to watch, he has to just take what the scheduling dishes out (when he stays at grandparents etc...). He also realises that much of the franchised kids stuff is actually quite inferior to the really stimulating and exciting children's literature and music that exists. He'd choose a cd story of Treasure Island over Hi Five any day. It's not that hard to exercise parental responsibility. We can't control what he'll be given for his birthday by his friends, but we can take time to introduce him to the classic joys of childhood, it's amazing to see how he responds to things like Asterix and Tin Tin (he's only just 6). Also, there are some good quality screen based products out there, when he was 3 1/2 we got the dvd set of Beatrix Potter stories, great production values and very authentic. He loved the stories for years. (Seeing a 4-year-old boy pretending to be Mrs Tiggy Winkle was a hoot.) And before you think he's a swotty nosed loner, he has great social skills and is very popular with other kids, why? Because he has a great imagination and is able to make up endless games and stories. I am evangelical about story cds, there is a great range, extremely well produced and they can keep kids entertained for hours, while stimulating their imaginations and allowing their brains to rest in a way that screen viewing doesn't. I couldn't have got through the last 3 years without them. (It also helps that we have a mango tree to climb and a back garden to run around in....)
As I'm a child of the 80s, I still buy GI Joe figures and Transformers on occasion for displaying on my bookshelves next to my theology books. In an attempt to understand why I do what I do, I wrote an essay on what drives an adult to collect anything at all - in my case, toys.
I'm sure that we're right and godly to tsk-tsk at how much greed isn't good for us, but I'm also sure that we recognise that theologians and academics are as much consumers of unnecessary products as any other brand of people, buying books they aren't ever likely to read and attending conferences that aren't really necessary. (How much money, including air fares, could be saved by non-US residents not attending SBL or AAR each year?)
And why do supermarkets warrant such devoted attention in attacks-on-consumerism? In many respects, aren't they just the local shops done good? Surely any shop, including bookshops, pushes its wares in the hope that someone will buy something they don't actually need.
I know this all sounds rather pompous, but there's a large part of me that bristles when I read shock-horror stats and comments. I mean no offence.
Byron, just in case you'd like to read my half-defence, half-critique of collecting, my essay's published as 'Collecting Memories: Identity, Nostalgia and the Objects of Childhood', and is found in Angela Shier-Jones (ed.), Children of God: Towards a Theology of Childhood (Peterborough: Epworth Press, 2007), pp. 159-179.
Doug - Indeed, I had to read them twice when I first came across them, and then had to read them aloud to a collection of parents with whom I was sitting at the time (don't worry, my reading in this context was not anti-social). They agreed that the stats were probably true from their experience. Scary indeed.
Christopher - The image is of a shopfront window of a major department store here in Edinburgh last Christmas (maybe the one before, actually). So I don't have that tank. :-(
Irith - Some great ideas there, and thanks for sharing your experience. That is both helpful and encouraging. I can testify your son is indeed a marvellous storyteller and has an imagination that runs at a million miles an hour. It was a joy to see him recently.
Terry - Thanks for joining the discussion and for making a substantial contribution in your first comment. Although I'm going to disagree with some of your points, I'm grateful for your thoughts. Keep them coming!
I'm sure that we're right and godly to tsk-tsk at how much greed isn't good for us, but I'm also sure that we recognise that theologians and academics are as much consumers of unnecessary products as any other brand of people, buying books they aren't ever likely to read and attending conferences that aren't really necessary.
It is true that theologians are members of a culture saturated by manipulative advertising and whose greed has been stoked by many decades of fantastic wealth accumulation. However, the point of noting patterns of consumption is not to be able to look down our noses at our greedy neighbours (though that may be tempting if our own consumption is somewhat lower than those around us), but to unmask the allure of advertising, to open our eyes to the great wealth we already enjoy and to nurture contentment and thankfulness.
(How much money, including air fares, could be saved by non-US residents not attending SBL or AAR each year?)
Why pick the non-US residents? Many of the Americans who attend travel further than say Canadians or Mexicans. But I agree that there is much unnecessary travel in business and academia.
And why do supermarkets warrant such devoted attention in attacks-on-consumerism? In many respects, aren't they just the local shops done good? Surely any shop, including bookshops, pushes its wares in the hope that someone will buy something they don't actually need.
This is a very interesting point, and perhaps worthy of a post in its own right. While I certainly think that small shops can exhibit and encourage greed just as blatantly (on a smaller scale) as massive transnational supermarket chains, I suspect that the latter differ not merely in quantity but also in quality from the former. For instance, their size means that supermarkets have the ability to so dominate the supply market as to force down prices for farmers, who have nowhere else to go. Or consider the supply chain of a supermarket. Most will be drawing goods from all over the world, whereas many local shops will operate on a local scale. While international trade is not in itself a bad thing (indeed, it has many benefits), this kind of operation is quantitatively different from, say, an independent bakery using locally sourced ingredients. The latter may not necessarily have any desire to grow into the former, but a massive transnational is legally obliged to pursue profit for its shareholders above all other considerations. A local shopowner may wish to make an honest living, but can do so modestly without the pursuit of endless growth. Or (since this post raises the topic) consider advertising: few local shops have the advertising budget to not only shift products, but also to change patterns of consumption and desire in a culture. Small shops generally arise in response to the needs and desires of a local community. Massive companies can attempt to change the constitution of those desires.
Thanks for the reference to that article. I've seen that collection (being quite interested myself in a theology of childhood). I'll have to check out your article. Thanks again for your thoughts!
I understand your points, Byron. All very interesting! Writing the paper on collecting, I realised just how much of a consumerist I actually am, and I find that worrying.
But your comment has made me think about how subtle advertising can be. I've been following a few blogs for quite a few years, and I find it interesting how I've been influenced by some of these blogs, or by the comments on them. How often I've read a post and come away thinking I must read this, or I have to read that, or I need to accept x's interpretation of y. All very subtle forms of advertising!
Yes, that's true. Though I wouldn't call it advertising, I would call it persuasion, and I think it is a good thing. Advertising is a specific form of persuasion that aims to persuade us to behave in a particular way, specifically, to spend our money on things we were not previously going to buy. While some blog posts may take this form of persuasion, not all of it does. Where advertising is potentially pernicious is in persuading us to change our perceptions of what is necessary for a good and prosperous life from things outside the financial economy to things within it. Rather than finding the good life in relationships with others, we now pursue it through the accumulation and/or consumption of more and more stuff.
By the way, I am also deeply troubled by the depth with which consumerism has infiltrated my own thinking. Writing these posts is not pointing fingers at others, but trying to come to terms with the stories that I have been told and whether they are actually conducive to godliness and human flourishing.
Bringing in my comment from FB:
My 3 year old is an advertiser's dream - he loves any licensed character and pesters for licensed products. My 5 year old isn't like this. However, what is interesting is my 3 year old is the one with more EQ I think - so I wonder for him, the bombardment with licensed characters makes them feel familiar and even familial - and thus to be preferred to a character that is unknown.
Byron in response to your question, they seem to pick it up everywhere such characters are all pervasive - He is obsessed by Thomas, and I think this hit before he saw the TV show. There are toys, clothing, backpacks, drink bottles, yogurts.....so I really don't think no TV is the answer.
He is a materialistic kid anyway - this is manipulated by the creators of licensed products to give him a hook to hang it on. Since babyhood, he has always been a sensuous person - always reaching out to feel new textures for instance.
My 5 year old isn't materialistic, but has a desire for information which leads him to want too much time on the compter, dictionaries bought for him etc....
So for both, there are good desires (to enjoy creation, to connect with others, to seek knowledge) which have already started to be become perverted into greed.
If I compare their childhoods to my own, the difference I think would be not in the amount of greed of children, but in the availability of cheap products marketed at children. One of the worst things about this is that these cheap products are at the expense say, of other people's children working in bad conditions.
Byron, you wrote, Where advertising is potentially pernicious is in persuading us to change our perceptions of what is necessary for a good and prosperous life from things outside the financial economy to things within it.
But this is where I see a danger: You can only be a good theologian, a 'prosperous' theologian if you engage with those other thinkers that the bloggers deem worthy of current attention.
Granted, bloggers only share their thoughts on what they're researching at the moment, as do I in my blogging efforts, but... Well, perhaps I shouldn't be so susceptible to outside influence!
Terry - I have tried to distinguish persuasion (a broader category, which is neutral) from advertising (a subset of persuasion, and one that is frequently problematic). I have no problem with theologians, bloggers or anyone else trying to persuade people using arguments (at least in principle - there are, of course, bad arguments and bad ends towards which those arguments can be used). And so, let's look again at what I said:
Where advertising is potentially pernicious is in persuading us to change our perceptions of what is necessary for a good and prosperous life from things outside the financial economy to things within it.
I am not saying that persuading someone to change their perceptions of the good life is pernicious. It is the final phrase that is crucial: the switch in the definition of the good life from a focus on things money can't buy to a focus on things money can buy. That is what I called pernicious. If I try to persuade my readers to trust Christ, to love their neighbour, to hope in God's promises, that is very different from an advertiser trying to persuade people to trust in their investment plan, to love their luxury cars and to hope in their next overseas holiday. Do you see the difference?
Oh, I see the difference, and I don't disagree with you. I just think that under the guise of persuasion, advertising slips in very easily. I say again that after reading many blog posts, very often I feel pressurised to read such a such a theologian or philosopher, otherwise my academic endeavours won't be as others expect and my life won't be a fruitful. At this point, surely there's no persuasion; only advertising, even if there's no advantage to the blogger-advertiser in this instance.
I'm wondering if we're now saying the same kind of thing, but in different ways and so speaking past each other.
Ah yes, I see you point now: under the guise of persuasion, advertising slips in very easily. Indeed. I hope that I haven't contributed to making you feel that you needed to find your fruitfulness in spending more money. And I hope my latest post works somewhat in the opposite direction.
*I see you point = I see your point
Not at all, Byron. In fact, I don't think anybody at all actually intends this kind of thing - though I wonder if increased sales of any given author can be shown to correlate to the influence of a blogging series!
That said, there comes a point when I must accept that I'm responsible for my own actions: I don't have to buy x.
I don't have to buy x
Terry - that's a dangerous idea. Better watch out or you might ruin the economy. ;-)
Charlie Brooker: When even Weetabix has turned evil, you know the world is in a sorry state. Children as brand ambassadors.
Monbiot: Advertising is an addictive poison.
A nice graphic highlighting the manipulative roots of modern advertising.
Mark Hadley: How Consumerism Eats Our Kids. Good article.
Upworthy: The video that Coca Cola and McDonalds hope you'll never see.
Post a Comment