Article Review

 In “Transforming Citizens? Green Politics and Ethical Consumption on Lifestyle Television.” Tania Lewis (2008) discusses the push for television shows universally to present people with ways to cope with the rising unease about social issues and personal responsibility to the greater world. Using the idea of “lifestyle television” as a framework, Lewis shows that there are positive and negative elements to this push of “green politics”, and to be aware of these limitations makes us all the closer to becoming the socially responsible individuals we so strive to be.

“Lifestyle politics” is described as networks, rooted in “civic agency”, promoting ethical and conscious individuals (p. 228, quoting Bennett, 1998). It promotes the idea that “our everyday lives are embedded in questions of civic values and concerns around social responsibility in ways that complicate oppositions between public issues, politics, and citizenship…” (p. 229). Some examples of television shows directly involved in this process are Honey, We’re Killing the Kids and The Biggest Loser. By creating reality shows that give people advice on how they can easily participate in the green culture as well; these television shows bring lifestyle politics right to the typical family’s living room. Lewis also states that some of these shows offer "viewers rather romanticized, escapist images" of the alternative, "slow" modes of living (p. 233), other shows exhibit a "'shaming and blaming' element" (p. 237).

Near the close of her article, Lewis briefly explains the implications of socioeconomic status in the green revolution. She comments that it is most directly targeted towards the white middle class. To give this article more contemporary relevance, I propose studying the affects of these lifestyle politics in members of another socioeconomic position. Being that bourgeois ideals tend to permeate a great deal of cultures overall, the affects of this new lifestyle must have some influence on other groups of people than those who are watching the shows. Since these reality shows make eco and green living more accesible for all people, not just the culturally conscious, wealthy, or white, another study could be done on how the presence of these shows affects people's purchasing. People generally buy what they see on television, and the reality nature of the shows makes it even closer to home and heart for viewers.

The detrimental nature of eco-consumerism is also of note in Lewis’s article. Further discussion on the amounts of trash generated by new green technology and misuse of green products by individuals simply to attain a sense of self-righteousness would be helpful and fascinating. Lewis writes (quoting Monbiot, 2007) “one of the major limitations of green consumerism is its tendency to encourage more rather than less consumption,” (p. 237). A thorough examination of the nature of the green revolution belonging to the category of “consumerist” or “anti consumerist” is necessary here.

This article is helpful in discussing the depiction of lifestyle politics as far as television goes and brings up many good points concerning ethics and how social responsibility is portrayed to us through these shows. It does fall short in analyzing the positive and negative affects of these portrayals. She gives so much evidence of different television shows, and does very little to explain the effects of the shows in our everyday lives and opinions. Since the article covers worldly matters and does not solely focus on one country, the article is fairly heuristic (though it could have encompassed more cultures). Lewis was, however, thorough in her definition of and theoretical implications of lifestyle politics. She gave much background information and references to other academic studies relating to her topic.

Smart shopping means more than just sales

Plenty of magazines these days focus on healthy lifestyles, green shopping, and the idea of moral buying. England's "Ethical Consumer" is a perfect example of this. You can browse their website at www.ethicalconsumer.org. Here they describe their magazine as "the truth behind the products we buy and the companies we buy them from, with detailed buyer's guides, news, in-depth features, opinion and comment, boycott updates, readers' letters, and much more." They also claim their motto is "challenging corporate power since 1989." I find this fascinating because since this is a print magazine, and it's funding must still come from subscribers, advertisements, and newsstand purchasers, it is considered a media outlet. There is no possible exemption from corporate involvement or corporate standing, and to claim such a thing is false advertising.

The magazine's website has a section devoted to "Why buy ethically?" so we can better understand the weight of our dollar. It lays out what kind of vote we cast if we buy sweatshop products, factory farmed meat, and own large SUV like vehicles (specifically reprimanding inhabitants of cities for such an act). Pretty much, in 500 words or less Ethical Consumer summarizes the importance of shopping with intention and even states "four kinds of ethical buying: positive buying, negative purchasing, company-based purchasing, and fully-screened approach." For the purpose of this blog post I will focus on their advising of shopping ethically in regards to clothing.

On the first page of this section you presented with opportunities to purchase the company's "Research Reports" on the ethical nature of certain clothing companies their audience is likely to shop at. This alone costs three pounds. So before the magazine can even tell you where to buy your clothes, you have to buy something. While I'm sure this cost is partially to offset the cost of the study itself, we are still being constantly presented with ways to spend our money. They do have free buyers reports to browse, so I clicked on a few

Under the clothing heading, the website devotes a whole section to "Urban Fashion." They describe this as following: "Popular urban streetwear brands of jeans, t-shirts and hoodies are often associated through lavish advertising and sponsorship with extreme sports, surfwear, workwear or 'independence of spirit'. " On the stop of their list they noted brands such as "Equop" and "Gossypium", nearer to the bottom they listed "H&M". All the descriptions of the companies seemed like almost an advertisement for the top few, which made me wonder if the magazine didn't receive funding like advertising space or contributions for the high mention. It would be very interesting to see their financial report of the year, however it cannot be found on their website. I'm not sure how "ethical" the actually company of Ethical Consumer is itself, but we can see that they advertise to us and sell products just the way most media (and corporate) outlets do.

Is My Sickness Real?

It may be that the "branding of diseases" has created many common illnesses people are faced with today. This is a brilliant marketing scheme, and quite unknown to the public who consumers medication treating these diseases daily. In an article titled "How to brand a disease - and sell a cure" on CNN.com, Carl Elliot writes on how a 1928 book titled "Propaganda" by Edward Bernays gives an excellent framework for the popular world of medicine today. The idea is that by persuading reporters to write about "new" diseases, or ones that are becoming more common, there is no need to advertise drugs directly. People will automatically want them; it is unnecessary to convince the public they "need" the drugs.
The examples of diseases the article gives are things such as overactive bladder, erectile dysfunction, panic disorder, and ADHD. The article claims these diseases were once quite rare, but the branding of them through certain marketing campaigns made them "culturally relevant". The author is unclear on what he deems culturally relevant, and the term is perhaps laid out better in the book "Propaganda". However, the motions of making a product culturally relevant does not seem to be difficult for the media as far as material items go, so why not do it with a disease? Since media has existed, it has influenced our purchasing power and made us believe we need an item to be happy or even functioning human beings.
This is a perfect example of the waves that flow through consumer culture. What will be next? Most individuals desire what they see everyone else buying (or watch television and are told to need it). For example, the drug Paxil was marketed as treatment for the problem "previously known as shyness". The company launched a campaign using celebrity interviews and heavily funded psychiatric lectures across the country. "The results were remarkable. In the two years before Paxil was approved for social anxiety, there were only about 50 references to social anxiety disorder in the press. But in 1999, during the PR campaign, there were over a billion references." As a result of our influence by the press, Paxil sales skyrocketed.
These are FDA approved drugs, and thusly double legitimized in the purchaser's eyes. Blind to the effects of intaking chemicals everyday with iffy side effects, and the mental state of mind that there is something "wrong" with each of us, culture soaks up every last bit of what is fed by media. Perhaps in ten years we will be marketed holistic medicines that are much healthier for individuals, but by this model it is guaranteed to be taken advantage of for the purpose of profit. 


http://edition.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/10/11/elliott.branding.disease/

The Commodity of Sleep

With the insanely busy lives we all live these days, it's no suprise that millions of people have issues with sleep resulting in deprivation. In bed our minds race with what needs to be done tomorrow; we drink too much caffiene; we stay up late finishing late work. Ultimately the thought of getting a full eight hours seems insane. Like many other "disorders" in people's lives, drug companies have found a way into the sleep world. They make simple little pills, like Lunesta and Ambien, and market them with perfection.
Dependency on drugs like these are not the hard part for these companies. Getting people addicted to Lunesta-like pills is as easy as getting someone addicted to cocaine or even alcohol. Everyone is looking for an easy way to relieve the pain of these "disorders", and a legal one can be presented through the media quite easily. Take for instance this ad, put out by Lunesta (see bottom of post). The girl on the left looks misrable, as if she has tossed and turned all night trying to fall asleep. Her face is miserable and she grips her pillow and the blanket in rage. You may be thinking at this point: "Hey, that looks like me, any given day of the week!" Well, this may be true, considering how difficult it can be to fall asleep every night. This is where the drug companies hook you.
The next image is of  the same girl, except this time she is sleeping as sound as can be. Her blankets are perfectly smoothed, her hair is in place, and she even has a little green butterfly at her head to simulate dreaming. In her sleep, the girl smiles. If this doesn't make you want to take sleeping pills, I don't know what could. Don't we all want to have a perfect night's sleep?
By making sleep a commodity, these companies are able to play off one of our most inherent life needs: rest. This is a brilliant consumer approach. It makes us actually believe that to get a good nights sleep we need to have an expensive pill. Is this the truth? People have been sleeping for millions of years, plenty of them without some sort of substance. I do not personally know the key to a good night's sleep, but I think we are being manipulated by these advertisements to think we must spend money to sleep a good eight hours.


http://www.drugbuyers.com/freeboard/ubbthreads.php/ubb/download/Number/15572/filename/Lunesta-v-Ambien.jpg

All natural dollar bill.

Forbes.com put out an article titled "Ten Things We're Still Buying", written by Lauren Sherman on January 20^th, 2009. Since consumer spending as exponentially dropped as a result of unemployment rates and the "recession" our economy is in, people have apparently mostly given up buying brand names in exchange for their cheaper counterparts. Martin Lindstrom, retail marketing expert and author of a book, claims that there are still items that people have no qualms about purchasing.

The very first item on their list is "Personal Care". This includes shampoo, make-up, shaving cream, etc. One study shows that these products have grown around 15 percent between 2007 and 2008. This shows that even though people are strapped for cash, they are not willing to let their personal appearances show it, so they continue to invest funds in looking good. While they could be investing money in places that may help them if they happen to lose their job or take a serious pay cut, they instead are focusing on keeping up their appearances as if nothing is wrong with our economy.

Consumers of personal care products have also begun to purchase many more "all natural" advertised products. One president of such a company claims that people are forced to put off doctor visits, and the increasing unemployment rate also means an increasing amount of people lacking health insurance. She uses this evidence to propose that people are turning to more "natural" remedies. Her company, for example, sells a seven dollar tin of gummies that are advertised as natural stress relievers, made from white flower extract.

I happen to know quite a few people who do not have health insurance, and a great deal more who are blessed to have it. Neither party is more partial than the other to buying all natural items. In fact, these items tend to be quite expensive themselves, and the only sort of person who has enough money to spend seven dollars on a tin of natural "stress-relief" is probably one who can comfortably afford the rest of their groceries and health-care items.

I believe that the popularity of such items is actually apart of the green and natural revolution that is sweeping the nation in many ways. People are more inclined to purchasing things that claim they are better for them then items chock full of chemicals and preservatives. This is not because they fully understand what the term "all-natural" means, and can't afford to go to the doctor, but because it is the new trendy thing to do. Companies are now shifting their marketing and advertising to appeal to this trend in consumer culture, and it's working on us quite well.

Ten Things We're Still Buying - Forbes.com