 the sociologist on the Sheboygan campus. We are here today to discuss our common read, Afluenza, the all-consuming epidemic written by John DeGrath, David Wayne, and Thomas Naylor. The authors basically propose in this book that Americans in general have become afflicted with a disease or we can also refer to it as an addiction they've also referred to it as. And that over the last few decades this disease has reached epidemic proportions. Now what is this disease or epidemic? They call it, they refer to it as Afluenza. In their words as I have up here on the document camera, Afluenza is a painful, contagious, socially transmitted condition of overload. That's my first question. It's a dog pursuit of more what? It wasn't happiness. Well right after the table of contact sickness, because it's a document camera, but they think a lot less as you point it out, must be possessions. The dog is pursuit of more, more material possessions or stuff. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me as I was reading the book that the premise of the book is that Americans have become hyper consumers. We have entered the age of what sociologists, Juliet, refers to as the new consumption. According to shore in 1998 or book overspent Americans, we've developed this cycle of work and spend and that there's been a dramatic upscaling of what Thorstein Vablin refers to as conspicuous consumption since the late 1970s. Now you're in the book Afluenza, they talk often about use the term conspicuous consumption, but this term was created by Thorstein Vablin in 1899. He's a classic sociologist, classic sociological concept. Okay. To describe the relationship between social class and consumptive patterns in early United States history. In his book, The Theory of the Leisure Class that was published in 1899, Vablin described wealthy United States industrialists as engaging in what he referred to as conspicuous consumption. Basically, conspicuous consumption, from his perspective, is a public display of wealth through material objects and leisure to signal comparative degree of social power. Okay. In order to attract public attention, what you can't see according to Thorstein Vablin is bank accounts. In order to attract public admiration, the wealthy, top 20%, 1%, often engage in consumption and leisurely activities that are both highly visible and in Afluenza and Thorstein Vablin also talks about highly wasteful. Okay. Examples of such highly visible conspicuous consumption are Vanderbilt's eight lavish mountains, mansions, not mountains. Okay. Liberace's 30 cars or he had hundreds of capes and 1000s of capes and one had jewels in it that reportedly weighed 100 pounds visible. We have examples today of conspicuous consumption and I'm sure that you can think of many examples of conspicuous consumption. Okay. How many people in the United States and this is often the hummer, how many people need a big yellow hummer to drive eight blacks, bring our kids to school. Okay. All right. The thing is, according to the read that we did, the book, and many other economic theorists, conspicuous consumption is a behavior that has filtered down into other classes. Indeed, your book talks about many families living on credit in order to purchase goods that are not necessarily needed for sustenance. Okay. In Shor's analysis, conspicuous consumption or what she calls and I use Shor because the book Afluenza uses Shor's, some Shor's theories. Okay. And employs a lot of her research as examples throughout the texts of conspicuous consumption or materialism or in work hours and a lot of examples to demonstrate to provide evidence comes from her research, Juliet Shor. Okay. In Shor's analysis, conspicuous consumption or what she calls, she calls it competitive consumption. Okay. Has existed throughout history. In America, old competitive consumption, the display of relatively valued material objects, she argued is located in wealthier groups. Okay. Within wealth groups. During the post World War II era with the growth of suburbia, she argues, competitive consumption was equated to keeping up with the Joneses. And in your book, they often also refer to keeping up with the Joneses. Our drive for more stuff is in part a result of our desire to keep up with our neighbors. Okay. See what your neighbors got. You see what your neighbors have. Ah, you know, they just put up. That's funny. They just put up, you know, painted their house. Maybe I need to paint my house. Okay. Two, and I'm going to paint my house and make it nicer. All right. They just cut their lawn. I better cut my lawn to show civil, you know, civilization and separation from nature. But that's another point. Okay. In the old consumption, as Shor talks about, she is referring to basically people competing for status and prestige through material objects with like reference groups, reference groups that were very similar. So in the post World War II era, when we were suburbanizing, the Joneses were the people who were just getting their new homes. And they were looking at their neighbors, basically a homogenous neighborhoods. People had relatively the same amount of wealth and they were comparing and competing, consumptively with people that had basically the same income and wealth. Okay. Now, they basically they see their neighbor buying a washing machine or a Chevy and they seek to emulate or to one up their neighbor. Okay. However, Shor is arguing and I think your book, the book, the authors of this book influenza are arguing. Since 1970s, we see competitive consumption shifting out where Americans across the income spectrum are seeking to emulate the affluent, the people in the top over six figures. And I like didn't have chalkboard up here. So I just did a quick right. They've been was talking about the competitive consumption amongst the elite in the 18, you know, early 1900s and late 1800s amongst the elite upper classes where they would buy one would buy get a lavish mountain another mountain. I don't know what that that is mansion. And another would try to better them and they were competing because you can't see a bank account. You can't, you can't see that. So they were trying to say, we're better. I have this great carriage. I can throw this great party and their neighbors, right would then throw this great party that tops them. Okay, but now she argues we're seeing a shifting down. Okay, of this competitive consumption into the mass society. All right. Now our models, she argues, are upscaled. Okay, we're no longer competing with like reference groups, working within wealth, we're competing, our consumptive patterns are in competition, we're competing to power and prestige and status through the material competition amongst groups that are way wealthier than we are. Okay, in her words, quote, shores, the lifestyle of the top 20% has become the aspirational target. Now for the 80% below. Okay, short argues that there are three factors that lead to the shift in the new consumerism. And I'm just going to quick touch on those, but that isn't one of the main one of my main points. But we can analyze these factors when we discuss toward the end of this presentation. Okay. Why did it speed up? Why did it change from old consumerism in the seventies to now? Okay, women entering the workforce in greater numbers. Okay, was one of her in is in her theory, she argues that since the 1970s, women, women have entered the workforce in greater numbers. Okay, and I was wondering what, you know, what did that have to do with it? Is there an underlying assumption there gendered assumption, right that women spend more? Okay, well, in fact, they do but not that much. Women spend at least in time hours according to Bureau of Justice Statistics 1.81 time shopping in general. That's both for grocery shopping and consumer shopping with men 1.55. Take that as you want, but we'll come back to that. But she was saying that them entering the workforce women in general, entering the work force in greater numbers after they're leaving their she calls that they're leaving their coffee clutches, they're leaving their neighborhood. And they're being exposed to wider reference groups. They're being exposed to bosses and bosses, bosses, and co workers who are making variable income, and they're talking about what they're spending, and they're what they're spending their money on and they're sharing their their jewelry and their conspicuous consumption. And these no longer are these people who are homogenous as far as class is concerned. These are people who you have wider reference groups, wealthier people, you're comparing yourselves now to wealthier people. This is according to short. Her second factor is the that has sped it up is the growing economic inequality. Okay, the gap between the rich and the poor grows. From 1977 to 1999. And this is her analysis. The top 20% saw of wealth, wealthy individuals, wealthy groups, individuals saw an 18% increase in just income alone. And she was using that analysis. And we can talk about that too. The mid 60% Okay, a fourth saw 14% decline. Okay, between 1977 and 1999, the top, the bottom 20%, a 25% decline. So the gap is growing. And income inequality, she argues propels. Okay, and other sociologists and economic theorists argue that income inequality per pet propels conspicuous consumption. Okay. Because the top 20% are displaying, okay, there are a number of reasons for that. We can talk about that later too. But the top 20% were obtaining more of the pie, they're displayed and they're displaying this in very public ways. Now, entering the workforce, and economic inequality isn't the only reason. And your book talks about culture. Okay, the media, the media, she says, promotes conspicuous consumption, the mass consumption the mass upscaling of buying more and more stuff. Okay, in increase in the media use significant 1970s to 2000. What are we in 2012? Okay, 2010. In general, Americans were watching women were watching 3.22 hours of television. Okay, men were watching 3.66 hours per tele, per television a day. Okay, and that's just television. Okay, that doesn't include the internet which is increasingly, you know, bombarding us with advertisements. Okay, in the media sitcoms such as friends present a fictional representation of what the consumptive norm is. Okay, and we do find that number we meaning a number of researchers, heavy TV viewers tend to have an upward bias in their perceptions of what people have. Okay, we're watching sitcoms such as friends and she uses that example in her presentation. Sure does. We're watching sitcoms such as friends and what is somebody tell me what is friends and how many of you have seen friends, the sitcom good. Okay, so it is still a relevant example. Basically, where do these people live? New York City. What does their apartment look like? It's big. And do you think that that's given what what do these people do? They drink coffee, which who does Chandler? Yeah, he did. You know, he did move toward advertising. Right? And Joey is what? In spite he's not even making that much money. Come on. And what's the other woman do? She originally was Oh, masseuse, right? Okay. Really? She you know, sure is asking us. Are these people really going to be living in this situation? Yes, they're sharing an apartment. Okay, but the buying patterns is overblown. It's over exaggerated. This is not the norm. Okay, people are watching these types of sitcoms and sure argues that there's a many sitcoms that overboard there. There are some that are not. But there are many sitcoms that overblow or misrepresent the median income or the income for that family. And then when people are watching, they get an upward perception of what is the consumptive norm, how people are living. Okay. Horting. And then I thought a lot about hoarding as I was reading this book and the show hoarders. And we can talk about that. But I wanted to just give you an overview of basically what their argument of the book was in case you haven't read it, or haven't had a chance yet to read it. And to give us an idea of, you know, remind us of what the basic premise of this book is. Okay, now, not only are Americans engaging in this dog pursuit of more, it is important to note and they provide a lot of evidence and even sure is arguing that it's contagious. Okay, contagious disease. And I thought that was that was something else. I was thinking the whole time I'm trying to the weeks for weeks and number of you know how in nervous I was, what were my goals for this presentation? What did I want to talk about? And I wanted to talk about, you know, questioning dog pursuit of more. I wanted to talk about and introduce you to the terms that are thrown around in the book that were sociological concepts, and kind of give you a history of what they're, you know, what kind of theories that they were actually presenting in their read, which I understand is to attract a greater audience, not just us sociologists. Okay, but they also argued that this hyper mass consumerism, okay, is contagious. Right, Dr. David Suzuki in a number of studies, books and books on globalization, we'll argue that that is correct. And I have a little clip for you to talk about affluenza being contagious. I can think about how to do this. And she said I can use this. See if it works. For three more minutes. A few years ago, I flew into a very remote village. My foundation has been working with 13 First Nations villages in the remote part of the coast of British Columbia, and I flew into a village of First Nations people called Clem 2, the Kittison people that they're, it can, there are no roads to it can only be reached by air or boat. There are 200 people in the entire village. And when I was approaching Clem 2, I literally burst into tears, I had not thought that there was such vast forest still intact and on the West Coast of Canada. And here was Kittison territory still completely intact forest and ocean. When I landed, I was met by dozens of kids and people that welcomed me to the, to their village and shown them to my place where I'm staying with someone. And that evening, they had a huge piece in the community center. All 200 people were there. And this huge banquet table was groaning with halibut and salmon and crabs and clams and herring eggs and seaweed. We had this incredible feast and at the end, Percy Starr, the band manager got up and he said, he welcomed me and he said, We are very poor. We need development. And when he met was we have to log and we have to, we have to bring salmon farms and we have to allow mining to come in. And when I got up, I, in my speech, I replied, you know, I come from a very rich part of Canada. I live in Vancouver. I live in a very expensive part of the city to call Kitsulano. In mind one block, there are probably three times as many people that live in the entire village of Clem 2. And yet in the 25 years I've lived in that block, I've only come to know about 10 of the people around me. I have to lock my car because it's been broken in too many times. My house has been burgled three or four times. We have a park that's half a block away. My children weren't allowed to play in the night because we were afraid for their safety. I couldn't with all my wealth ever put on a feast like the kind of people in Clem 2 gave me that night. And they, and I said to them, you say your poor. To me, you are rich in community and you are rich in your surrounding lands and continues to deliver the kind of feast that we need. In the process of trying to come into the modern world for heaven's sake, don't give up the very things that matter most that we in the cities are yearning to rediscover. But the global economy renders people like that poor and makes them think that they have to destroy the surrounding land to acquire the the trinkets that we think are the key to happiness. Do you know where the real rot lies? Well, we'll find that we'll find that out. The point is, is that bull sure your your books, Afluenza, many sociologists Dr. David Suzuki are concerned, okay, that Afluenza this mass seeking of material objects is problematic and it's contagious and it's problematic and it contributes to the breakdown of families. It contributes to environmental degradation. Okay, and we can anxiety, lowered self esteem, and we could go on with all the negative consequences that this being on a treadmill of consumption and production produces. Okay, now there are a couple of things that I wanted to note here. As I was reading this and thinking about it. Interrelated. Okay, and I couldn't decide what I wanted to talk about really because they were talking about so let's talk about we could talk about our increasing debt. Okay, we can talk about anxiety in the in the work hours that we're spending. And that America has more work hours. We can talk about the fact that this stuff does not buy us happiness. Okay, we can talk about waste and environmental in my environmental sociology, I talk about waste, we can talk about over population and over consumption. And I really was freaking out and decide what my main point what I wanted to talk about. Okay, well, I wanted to make a point that people many theorists agree with your book. And in a part I agree with it. But I want to as a sociologist who studies race, class and gender. I don't want to spend a lot of time talking about it. I almost was going to be careful of universalizing experiences. One thing that I kept thinking about when I was reading the book over and over again, who's we? Americans, Americans, Americans, right? Americans vary vastly in as they point out in their income distribution and their religious perspectives in their age and race and ethnicity. Okay, different ethnic groups. Okay, there's ample research suggests within this heterogeneous society, consume at different rates. Okay, not everyone is seeking this middle class. We also have people who are joining organizations and are very concerned about the environment and reject this hyper consumerism. And your book does talk about that voluntary simplicity. So be careful of the universalizing experience and just keep that as you're reading affluenza. I encourage you to just keep that in mind. Be careful of universalizing. Many evidence, much evidence suggests that gender differences will mediate our behavior. So will ethnic, religious, educational age. Okay, many elements of our social location will change, will alter our behavior. So we're not all the same. And we don't all spend time, okay, collecting stuff. All right. There's something else I was thinking in related to that. Much of the public is aware. Okay, your book talks about this, the emptiness of stuff, material objects. And I think that's important to point out the emptiness of material objects. Many people across the different spectrums are well, aren't also concerned in America about and understand the emptiness of stuff. In fact, many religious traditions talk about the emptiness of stuff. So our religions influence our attitudes or at least, I don't know if you can see it, but American Indian, miserable as we seem in the eyes, we consider ourselves much happier than thou is that that we very content with the little that we have. Christian, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. Okay, many religions, poverty is my pride. Muhammad said that. Many religions tell us, inform us Americans, now I'm generalizing, that stuff be wary of the emptiness of stuff. Okay, so here then I'm thinking about the simplicity of arguing that our consumptive patterns, our consumptive patterns of Americans as all of us are growing, we're collecting stuff at a great rate. And in a sense, I would agree. Okay, but in another sense, I would ask you to just think about that. There's another thing I wanted to talk about. Okay, stuff. Okay, more stuff. And when I first started, and this is going to relate to him in a third point too, when I first started thinking about what I want to talk about in relation to the text and from a sociological perspective, I really thought about universalizing race, class, gender and showing you different graphs. Then I was thinking about stuff. Okay, what is stuff? What are the functions of stuff? And I started actually creating a PowerPoint, which I'm going to talk about power pointing in a little bit as well, but I started thinking about the sociology of stuff. What are the different functions of stuff? Now one function certainly is status and prestige. Okay, but there are other functions of stuff. Okay, as Michael Bell, he's an environmental sociologist and he wrote this book, Invitation to Environmental Sociology. It's a really good book. He states, there's more to people than a will to gain power and show off. The goods we surround ourselves with show not only how we set ourselves apart from others, Vablin's point. Okay, but also how we connect ourselves to others. We can all give examples of this. Here are some of mine. Okay, this is valuable. This is some of my stuff. Yes, the left stuff. We have a lot of stuff as I'm moving and talking to other people who are moving. You realize how much stuff you collect. Yes, but it's not all just display of status and prestige. This does not display my status and prestige. I'm pretty sure it doesn't, even by your lap. It doesn't, right? But what this is, is something I made for my grandmother, okay, whom I was very connected to and I adored her. Okay, and she kept this. I made this when I was like in third grade, right, in the sewing class and she kept this for years and years and years and years. She had this pillow next to her when she died. This is my grandmother. This stuff isn't just stuff. It symbolizes the spirit of my grandmother. A wedding talks about wedding rings. Our classic example of what the Maori people talk about, the how of objects, spirits are attached to gifts. Now they're talking about gifts. Maybe we're talking about material objects that we don't buy and that there's a distinction between gifts and stuff that we go out and just spend thoughtlessly. Okay, but a lot of the stuff that that first family and the second family had outside that home in the first picture isn't just about status and prestige. That stuff holds memories. It holds and displays connections. It enhances our identities. It maintains social connections. A wedding ring, classic example of an object that doesn't necessarily, that might be valuable. Okay, and we could talk about the expectations, monetary expectations of people who obtain wedding rings, right? You don't want it from a, probably it's not normative to get a wedding ring that's worth $3. Okay, in our society, right? And we could talk about that too, right? But stuff that's most valuable to me is stuff that you might, doesn't mean, you know, my boyfriend got me this last Easter. It's still on my TV, I noticed. I have a big screen. I just, this reminds me, why is this, this reminds me of his thoughtfulness. Okay, so first Easter basket that I had, I had received since I was little. Okay, that was, that was thoughtful. It's like a memory of an experience that connects me to him, right? And this, you know, I could go on and on about stuff. My son said, mom, why do you have that picture? Okay, you're embarrassing me. Okay, but I call it, we collect stuff. I'm sure you can think about stuff that helps you remember others and connects you to other people. Okay, so the functions of stuff. It doesn't just connect us or distance us or separate us from others. It also can make connections. And David Enroe, in his research on interviewing people who have been, who are aware of their impending death, talk about strategies that people use to maintain their identity even after they die and strategies that survivors use to maintain a connection with past people in their lives, people who have moved on from this life. Part of those strategies was the accumulating of artifacts, stuff, okay, and the distributing artifacts. You give somebody, you know, people when they start to prepare for death and they're thinking awareness, they're aware that they're going to die soon. They're thinking about the things that are valuable to them. And they tell stories about objects, okay, in hopes that these stories are going to be, their identity is part of their story telling, is identity telling about themselves. And they're hoping that they're, they pass them along to family members, right, in hopes that they're going to be remembered. Their identity is going to be remembered. Okay, so stuff also provides social connections. All right, we want to keep that in mind. And I thought Suzuki does a really good job of reminding us of that. I'm looking at the clock in his next statement. It's not just in the overemphasis on human cleverness and invention. It's not just the externalizing or discounting of the natural world. It's not just the belief and growth forever. It's not just that it's that it fails to even acknowledge that there are things of value that lie outside of economics that are priceless beyond worth or beyond price. I want to give you an idea. I've lived in this part of Vancouver now for 25 years. We come in our home a few years ago when money was pouring into Vancouver from Hong Kong because Hong Kong was going to revert back to China. I got a letter in the mail that said foreign money is flooding Vancouver. Now's a good time for you to sell your place and buy up. And I thought, what the hell are they talking about? This isn't my place to buy. This is my home. If I were to put this on the market, what are the things that I would list there that are worth something to me? So I began to make a list. When Tara and I were married 30 years ago, my father's a cabinet maker, made a kitchen cabinet for our, covered for our kitchen. When we moved to our home, I tore that cabinet out to put in my kitchen. It doesn't fit, but it's valuable to me because it's my father. Years ago, my best friend from Toronto came out to stay with me for a week. I was building a fence along the water and he spent a day carving a beautiful handle which I put on the gate. And every time I used that gate, I think of my friend Jim. And I put that down on my list. We have a dog with three outs of that and we have a little cemetery there. We've buried Pasha, our dog, there. And my kids of dragon snakes and starlings and all kinds of critters that have died on the road and we've buried them there. And I put that cemetery down on my list. My father-in-law, mother-in-law live upstairs. He's a rapid gardener and he knew that I love raspberries and asparagus and he's planted them in his garden for me. One year I'd been away for a month. When I came to the door, the first person to meet me was my father-in-law. And he had a brown bag. He said, David, this is the first crop of asparagus and I saved it for you. And I put that down on my list. And my mother died. We put her ashes along the back fence where there's a Clematis plant growing. And every year when that Clematis plant blooms, I know that my mother is there. And when my niece, Janice, died prematurely, we put Janice's ashes there. And I put that down on my list. And as I looked over on that list, I realized those are the things that make my place home. How do you pay for any of that? When to put that on the market, those are absolutely worthless. They have no value at all. And I've only lived in my home for 25 years. You think of First Nations people that have lived on their land for thousands of years. Every rock, every river, every pen in the rivers is sacred and precious to them. That to me is the real rot that resides in the heart of economics. So what do we do? I believe we have to look beyond the rhetoric that shouts at us over and over. Globalization brings a good life to all. Globalization's wealth will trick them down to the floor. So the problem is not stuff, but more stuff. Or overvaluing stuff over what makes us really happy is connection. There was one more point that I was going to just talk more about identity enhancement and the function of stuff. But there's another point I wanted to make that my son brought, believe it or not, just the other day. As I was starting to prepare for presenting the common need a month ago and I was getting closer and closer to the date I was constructing a power point. I had the first page, sociology of stuff and I thought of I was going to share with you history of holidays and how they've become over focused on material items instead of how we lost that tradition and I was getting video clips from YouTube and considering doing all that. But close to the end of the presentation I was thinking more than of information and trying to gain information and just thinking about the information I wanted to connect with you and talk about. So the other day I had my power point up on my laptop and my son came and looked at it and he goes, really mom? I'm really concerned mom. You can't use this. You can't use that power point and I thought that was really interesting. Here was something that talks about while I think that affluences I agree and I disagree with the premise of the book. My son was talking about who by the way wants to upgrade his phone continually upgrade how many of us want to continually upgrade our phones or upgrade our cars and my son tends to be pretty materialistic and I said what's wrong with this? And he said well first of all mom the only picture that's adequate is this one because it's clear and you must have used the power point correctly when you put this picture up there. And I said well how am I supposed to do it? And he picked up his laptop and I didn't have a power point on mine but he had it on his and he started clicking a few buttons and he had rotating pictures and he had the Google thing breaking apart and he's like I'll make this really good for you mom. Because your traditional way of presenting material on the top board or VHS by the way I had to make sure there was a VHS is outdated and you're going to look bad. And I came all the way around to are we doing that to our teaching? Are we you know focused more on the presentation and entertainment value of our material and status and prestige of our presentations and less on connection and the quality of material and that's what I wanted to then start talking about do you think we are? What are you saying? As educators do you think it's a what do you think the functions are? It's not necessarily they have to be a negative function or a positive function but the increase in upgrading our technological advancements of you know trying to keep up with the technological advancements that isn't just in a I was able to individually challenge that okay right look at that but it's in our structure this overspending and overworking is in our social structure as well we can challenge it but structural arrangements some kind of constrain our ability to challenge these progressions Yeah Yeah pretty much anything we overhead at all we said with a good text and discuss it what we did and I like the life work so I I I I I I I I I but here we're going to do merit reviews right when we do merit reviews the use of technology and keeping up with the Joneses as far as education is concerned is considered a positive mark so it's part of our structure by many well we need empirical evidence to support that any other ideas that came up from this I'm not an educator but it's not only but your students are coming to you much more sophisticated than they might when I was they were expecting a different learning experience and I think if you're going to create a teachable moment you may need to use it there are a couple things I thought right away sophistication what makes it more second but they are coming at a different technological with different technological socialization they have different technological expertise and aren't we somewhat responsible as educators to meet that or at least meet them half way students right they need to learn is this a technical value we're responsible to show the alternative ways to actually learn I wanted a chalkboard up here I was upset that there wasn't one do you have to use the stuff engaged do you have to that's a very good question our news is going really quick the children's brain is developing within this environment within this technological environment are they more equipped to deal with two second sound bites and flashy things to obtain information are they no longer able to obtain the information in the classroom okay good good good learning how to think thinking in a little two seconds it's not good thinking it's not good so other disciplines in a sustained focus deep in helping them to engage in critical thought I agree that's my pedagogy too last night in Ohio among people who voted 30% over $100,000 they preferred so I don't know what's contagious but perhaps it's interest rather than a sell good thanks any other comments sir go ahead I have a bunch of questions does affluenza does affluenza what it's a good question what do you all think you can hardly I could too what does the text say I didn't write it the text suggests it isolates us we're increasingly isolated and provides evidence to suggest that we're spending more hours at work so less time with our kids isn't that easy so that's integral rather than alienating of course it may not be integral to what needs but it's fulfilling the need of a society to grow I guess it is and that's the last question what's important keep that in mind