Media as a tool for development
Introduction.
Using the media to influence public opinion and gain greater control is not a new idea, governments and various political movements have been doing this successfully for years (Carroll & Ratner: 1999). In certain cases, there have even been those that use media to influence the way a country is run by boosting public awareness (Page:1996). This is where ethnic minorities come in, with skilful use of these available resources, it is possible to not only boost the public’s awareness but also influence their opinion (Ginsburg: 1995; Herman&Chomsky: 1987; Page: 1996).
Discussion.
This new sounding board offers a unique opportunity for minorities to get their point across, but it inevitably comes at a price (Ginsburg: 1995; Banner: 1996). So far, the rewards have been enough to justify possible pitfalls, but constant revaluation will be needed to make sure that this stays true (Rogers: 1996; Ginsburg: 1995). Culture is by no means a bounded entity; interaction will lead to a certain degree of assimilation in both directions (Ginsburg: 1995; Banner: 1996). This is inevitable and even though this is mostly positive, it can also lead to minority cultures losing a certain degree of distinction from the majority (Eriksen: 2001). When your influence rests largely on your ethnic identity, it becomes clear how such a loss will be detrimental to your bargaining ability (Ginsburg: 1995).
However just like all that glitters is not gold, not all interaction leads to a loss of identity in fact some even argue that this leads to an increased distinction (Eriksen; 2001). Thus far, successful use of media has been an invaluable tool to cross cultural boundaries (Ginsburg: 1995; Wright: 1998). When ‘indigenous people’ have become a minority in their own country media provides a ‘soap box’ for these cultures, where their voice can still be heard in the rabble (Rogers: 1996; Ginsburg: 1995). Sadly, such productions have been relatively poorly funded, but even so, it is an effective way to resist domination from outside cultures (Wright: 1995). In this paper, Ginsburg focuses mainly on the Aboriginal people from Australia, but as can be seen from Wright; Chomsky; Banner and Rogers this is certainly not a unique occurrence. Ginsburg also mentions the importance of viewing these phenomena within their particular social and political context and this provides a more holistic view of these interactions.
Such a view addresses not only the occurrence of interactions, but also the mediations that take place between cultures due to these works. By offering a little more insight into their culture, minorities create empathy with their demands by humanising their ‘otherness’ in such a way that they become more real. Initial attempts at such mediation were hampered by an inability to effectively incorporate ‘natives’ own social frame into film representations (Ginsburg: 1995). This lack of insight as well as adaptation on the part of the natives meant that as time passed they wanted to take an active part instead of just being filmed and portrayed the way the producers saw them (Wright: 1998; Ginsburg: 1995). Being actively involved meant not only greater control, but also the opportunity to determine and produce their image (Wright: 1998; Ginsburg: 1995; Rogers: 1996; Page: 1996).
Conclusion.
The use of various means of mass communication by minority cultures enables them to spread awareness, but also gives them greater control over policies that concern them (Ginsburg: 1995; Wright: 1998; Page: 1996; Carrol&Ratner: 1999). By acting collectively, minorities reserve the right for self-determination and offer better resistance to domination imposed by majority cultures (Wright: 1998; Rogers: 1996). Thus ensuring greater control over their own welfare (Eriksen: 2001; Ginsburg: 1995; Wright: 1998)
References
Banner, S. 1996 ‘Written Law and Unwritten Norms in Colonial St.Louis’ in Law and History Review, Vol.14, No.1, pp.33-80
Carroll, W.K. & Ratner, R.S. 1999 ‘Media Strategies and Political Projects: A Comparative Study of Social Movements’ in Canadian Journal of Sociology, Vol.24, No.1, pp.1-34
Eriksen, T.H. 2001 ‘The Politics of Identity: Nationalism and Minorities’ in Small Places, Large Issues: An introduction to Social and Cultural Anthropology pp.275-291
Ginsburg, F. ‘Mediating Culture: Indigenous Media, Ethnographic Film, and the Production of Identity’ in L. Devereaux & R. Hillman (eds) Fields of Vision: Essays in Film Studies, Visual Anthropology, and Photography, Berkley: University of California Press
Herman, E. & Chomsky, N. 1987 ‘A Propaganda Model’ in Manufacturing Consent New York: Pantheon
Page, B.I. 1996 ‘The Mass Media as Political Actors’ in PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol.29, No.1, pp.20-24
Rogers, E.M. 1996 ‘Bright Spots in Communication for Development’ presented at the Conference on Communication and Empowerment: Uses of Media and Information Technologies in Developing Countries, Los Angeles, April 11-13, 1996 website: http://www.usc.edu/dept/ancntr/pdcomm/roger.html accessed 16 Sep 2006
Wright, S. 1998 ‘The Politicization of Culture’ in Anthropology Today, Vol.14, No.1, pp.7-15
Friday 1 December 2006
Word of the day- Garrulous
Garrulous: 1. Talking too much- excessively or pointlessly talkative.2. Wordy- using many or too many words.
Thesaurus- Talkative, voluble,chatty, taciturn (Antonym)
(From Encarta Dictionary:English (U.K.))
Thesaurus- Talkative, voluble,chatty, taciturn (Antonym)
(From Encarta Dictionary:English (U.K.))
Thursday 30 November 2006
Discussion: Wright on culture
Discussion: Wright on culture
Introduction
Wright begins her article by lamenting the complications of the topic she has chosen (Wright 1998: 7). And indeed the controversy around the definition of culture seems to be one of the central themes in most discussions about culture. How do you discuss problems arising from something if you can’t even decide what it is? (Rapport&Overing 2000: 92) Even the simple question of whether culture is our innate ability or acquired has been a significant obstacle (Rapport&Overing 2000:93) So assuming that culture does indeed exist, let us proceed. (Rapport&Overing 2000:94-95)
Compare and contrast Wright’s (1998) account of ‘old’ and ‘new’ anthropological approaches to ‘culture’.
Wright sees the ‘old’ definition of culture as a static ‘thing’ with cookie cutter people walking around doing the same sort of predictable things day in and day out regardless of what’s going on in the world around them.(Wright 1998: 8). The ‘new’ new idea surrounding culture has gotten to the point where people realise that things are constantly changing, with a lot of outside influences pulling a society in different directions. (Rapport&Overing 2000: 96) People inside a society are permanently jockeying for a position where they’ll have enough power to pander their interpretation of their ‘culture’ as the gospel according to all who live in it as well as those who seek to study them. Often using skewed versions of truth and society to do it. (Wright 1998:10)
Explain how ‘culture’, in both of these senses, has been introduced into the domains of cultural racism, multiculturalism, corporate culture as well as culture and development.
The ‘old’ definition of culture was used to support cultural racism by placing people in separate ‘culture boxes’ if ’ we’ are from this culture and ‘they’ are from that culture then obviously it makes sense to keep us all apart since mixing would pollute ‘our’ culture. (Wright1998: 10) Wright refers to the ‘New Right’ especially when she deplores the use of ‘culture’ to enforce “exclusion, using it as a euphemism for renewed racism” (Wright 1998: 11). In theory multiculturalism should endorse the diversity of different cultures, while still garnering them the respect that would be due people of your own culture (Google definitions 2006). But by promoting diversity, you ‘exoticize’ people from other cultures, making the subsequent segregation that much more effective (Rapport&Overing 2000: 98-99). Which brings us to corporate culture which is often used as just another definition for a mission statement of a company. (Wright 1998:11) Managers are actively employing both definitions of culture in order to gain employees active participation but it’s still done purely for their own benefit (Wright 1998:12). This same theme seems to run through cultural development as a whole, while UNESCO made a valid attempt at promoting a new ethical world with their rapport on creative diversity(Wright 1998:12) but they failed to take into account the “political dimension of meaning making”(Wright 1998:14). Oversights such as these have led to a simplistic view of the world and are insufficient to make any real change. As Wright says:” Levi-Strauss has provided UNESCO with a map of a flat world.” (Wright 1998:13) This makes it clear how much work still lays ahead if anthropologists are to make any real change.
What does Wright mean by “the politicization of culture”?
Quite a few of the more opportunistic politicians are using a slightly altered interpretation of culture in order to lend legitimacy to their own, often oppressing ideas. They claim validity based on anthropology while at the same time discarding the relativism an equality that it stands for. Many campaigns for segregation and discrimination have been based on a platform of ‘culture’. ‘Us’ and ‘them’ have become key words in the blatant manipulation of the concept of ‘culture’. (Wright 1998: 10)
What, according to Wright, is the role anthropologists ought to play with regard to the politics surrounding the use of ‘culture’?
The UNESCO report offered an opportunity for anthropologists to make a difference in this abuse of an innocent concept, but sadly it was severely underdeveloped. As a profession we should start taking a far more active role in protecting the marginalized, from policies building their validity on such twisted interpretations. And maybe we should take a page from these politicians’ books in order to be able to intervene more effectively in such cases in the future. I agree with Wright that some of the ‘edge’ that was present in the earlier forms of this discipline has been lost, and much can be said for taking a far more active approach in the interpretation and implementation of information gained from studies, lest society lose use for us altogether (Wright 1998:14).
References:
Wright, S. 1998 ‘The Politicization of ‘culture” Anthropology Today 14(1) pp 7-15
Rapport,N and Overing,J. 2000 ‘Culture’ in Social and Cultural Anthropology: The Key Concepts London: Routledge
www.media.pearsoncmg.com/intl/ema/uk/0131217666_glo.html (2006-03-03)(google definition search 2006-03-03)
Introduction
Wright begins her article by lamenting the complications of the topic she has chosen (Wright 1998: 7). And indeed the controversy around the definition of culture seems to be one of the central themes in most discussions about culture. How do you discuss problems arising from something if you can’t even decide what it is? (Rapport&Overing 2000: 92) Even the simple question of whether culture is our innate ability or acquired has been a significant obstacle (Rapport&Overing 2000:93) So assuming that culture does indeed exist, let us proceed. (Rapport&Overing 2000:94-95)
Compare and contrast Wright’s (1998) account of ‘old’ and ‘new’ anthropological approaches to ‘culture’.
Wright sees the ‘old’ definition of culture as a static ‘thing’ with cookie cutter people walking around doing the same sort of predictable things day in and day out regardless of what’s going on in the world around them.(Wright 1998: 8). The ‘new’ new idea surrounding culture has gotten to the point where people realise that things are constantly changing, with a lot of outside influences pulling a society in different directions. (Rapport&Overing 2000: 96) People inside a society are permanently jockeying for a position where they’ll have enough power to pander their interpretation of their ‘culture’ as the gospel according to all who live in it as well as those who seek to study them. Often using skewed versions of truth and society to do it. (Wright 1998:10)
Explain how ‘culture’, in both of these senses, has been introduced into the domains of cultural racism, multiculturalism, corporate culture as well as culture and development.
The ‘old’ definition of culture was used to support cultural racism by placing people in separate ‘culture boxes’ if ’ we’ are from this culture and ‘they’ are from that culture then obviously it makes sense to keep us all apart since mixing would pollute ‘our’ culture. (Wright1998: 10) Wright refers to the ‘New Right’ especially when she deplores the use of ‘culture’ to enforce “exclusion, using it as a euphemism for renewed racism” (Wright 1998: 11). In theory multiculturalism should endorse the diversity of different cultures, while still garnering them the respect that would be due people of your own culture (Google definitions 2006). But by promoting diversity, you ‘exoticize’ people from other cultures, making the subsequent segregation that much more effective (Rapport&Overing 2000: 98-99). Which brings us to corporate culture which is often used as just another definition for a mission statement of a company. (Wright 1998:11) Managers are actively employing both definitions of culture in order to gain employees active participation but it’s still done purely for their own benefit (Wright 1998:12). This same theme seems to run through cultural development as a whole, while UNESCO made a valid attempt at promoting a new ethical world with their rapport on creative diversity(Wright 1998:12) but they failed to take into account the “political dimension of meaning making”(Wright 1998:14). Oversights such as these have led to a simplistic view of the world and are insufficient to make any real change. As Wright says:” Levi-Strauss has provided UNESCO with a map of a flat world.” (Wright 1998:13) This makes it clear how much work still lays ahead if anthropologists are to make any real change.
What does Wright mean by “the politicization of culture”?
Quite a few of the more opportunistic politicians are using a slightly altered interpretation of culture in order to lend legitimacy to their own, often oppressing ideas. They claim validity based on anthropology while at the same time discarding the relativism an equality that it stands for. Many campaigns for segregation and discrimination have been based on a platform of ‘culture’. ‘Us’ and ‘them’ have become key words in the blatant manipulation of the concept of ‘culture’. (Wright 1998: 10)
What, according to Wright, is the role anthropologists ought to play with regard to the politics surrounding the use of ‘culture’?
The UNESCO report offered an opportunity for anthropologists to make a difference in this abuse of an innocent concept, but sadly it was severely underdeveloped. As a profession we should start taking a far more active role in protecting the marginalized, from policies building their validity on such twisted interpretations. And maybe we should take a page from these politicians’ books in order to be able to intervene more effectively in such cases in the future. I agree with Wright that some of the ‘edge’ that was present in the earlier forms of this discipline has been lost, and much can be said for taking a far more active approach in the interpretation and implementation of information gained from studies, lest society lose use for us altogether (Wright 1998:14).
References:
Wright, S. 1998 ‘The Politicization of ‘culture” Anthropology Today 14(1) pp 7-15
Rapport,N and Overing,J. 2000 ‘Culture’ in Social and Cultural Anthropology: The Key Concepts London: Routledge
www.media.pearsoncmg.com/intl/ema/uk/0131217666_glo.html (2006-03-03)(google definition search 2006-03-03)
Even your eyes can lie
Never believe everything your eyes tell you.
Because far too often the difference between what
we think is good or evil,
is only a matter of perspective.
Because far too often the difference between what
we think is good or evil,
is only a matter of perspective.
Wanting, needing and knowing the difference
Wanting, needing and knowing the difference
‘Material goods serve more than just our survival needs;
they meet our culturally defined wants as well” (Spradley 1997: 153)
Human beings are strange creatures; we need only a hand full of things in order to survive namely: water, food, shelter, clothing and companionship (Petroglyph). In theory, this would then mean that if these basic needs were met we would be content. Building on this one would also assume that the way in which these needs are met would have little effect on our happiness (Douglas & Isherwood; 1978). Reality on the other hand tells a completely different story, the way we attach value to an object bears little resemblance to either the production cost or the contribution it makes towards our survival (Foster; 2005). Advertisers have make millions by turning needs into wants (Bisseker; 2002). Sure, you may need a new jacket when winter rolls along, but only clever advertising or a brain tumour would make you spend US$4995.95 (Designer Exposure; 2006) on something that is going to be out of style next season. What we need to do then is look at the way in which we attach value to goods to better understand how our culture determines not only what we want, but also how badly we want it (Jay, 1970; Douglas&Isherwood).
Discussion
You would think that a few million years of evolution would mean that humans were immune to such trivial temptations such as advertising. After all, we did manage to put a man on the moon. Even I fell prey to Douglas&Isherwood’s theory when I went through the reading material. Although I was willing to admit that maybe other people fell into the advertisement trap, I was sure that I was immune. As I slipped into my Guess jeans, put on my YDE t-shirt and donned my Diesel sneakers however, I could feel doubt slowly creeping in through the back door. This made me take a look around and I could not help noticing how just about everything in my room was branded in some way, not even something as basic as toothpaste was left unaffected.
Brands invoke a strange sort of loyalty in the typical consumer, Foster (2005) even goes as far as calling it ‘loyalty beyond reason’. What is it that compels us to spend our hard-earned cash on something that technically either we don’t really need, or we could’ve gotten for a whole lot less? (Jay,1970; Barth,1970; Douglas&Isherwood) Part of the reason will undoubtedly be ‘real’ benchmarks such as quality and value for money, but studies on consumer behaviour shows that habit plays a greater roll that we would care to admit (Foster, 2005; Wikipedia). I am guilty of always buying a certain type of coffee and when there is none available, rather go without or have tea than risk another brand. There is nothing unique about my brand of coffee, you boil the water; add it to the soluble granules and coffee happens. Why then the reluctance to change?
Once a brand becomes imbedded in your routine and way of thinking, it is almost impossible to even think of using something else (Foster, 2005; Douglas&Isherwood, 1978). Until the next one catches your heart of course, when all the loyalty goes straight out the window (Wikipedia). What makes us stick to one brand or later makes us switch to another? One culprit is the influence outside groups such as friends and family have on us as consumers, another would be advertising. Apart from economic factors and actual quality considerations, these are the main reasons for choosing a particular product. Consumer behaviour studies spend vast amounts of time and money on figuring out exactly why we buy the things we do, along with how, when and what. This service is invaluable to producers since knowing what the public wants would give them an advantage when the time comes for them to sell their product (Wikipedia). In today’s highly competitive society, it becomes ever more important to make your product stand out above the rest, thus maintaining and expanding your market share (Foster, 2005).
Before we focus on the different ways this is achieved, let us look at the basic models for consumer behaviour, along with a basic models of buyer decision making. There are two fundamental models of consumer behaviour that can each be applied with varying degrees of success. The first of these is Howard&Sheth, they start by grouping the different stimuli that influence a consumer in the decision making process in order to better analyse their effect. The first; significative, refers to the material aspects of a product/service. The second; symbolic, refers to associations and ideas attached by the supplier. The third; social, refers to the ideology attached to a certain product by a culture and different social groups within this society. In this model, these inputs are seen as complete, with all possible stimuli of being grouped in one of them. The ‘outputs’ will of course then be the result of these stimuli on the consumer’s behaviour, or at least those that you can see. However knowing what influences a customer and what his or her end reaction is to all of this still doesn’t explain why they’ll buy a certain product (service). Howard&Sheth divides this decision making process into two areas. One; perceptual, referring to those involved with getting and managing information about the product (service). Two; learning, referring to the actual accumulation of knowledge, that led to the final decision.
The second model we will briefly discuss is known as the Engel-Kollat-Blackwell model and this follows a more mechanistic approach. They operate in the realm of evolutionary economics, where customers become causative forces operating within set conventions that are easy to pursue and implement. These conventions contain limited information and only a slight capacity for elaboration. This postulates that a customer identifies a certain need and after he or she has decided which group of goods satisfies it, sets a budget and uses this as the main driving force when selecting a particular item for consumption (Wikipedia). This very basic theory fails to take taste and other socially driven driving forces into account as named in Douglas&Isherwood (1978); Jay (1970); Barth (1970); Gell (1988).
These models provide us with part of the how, the actual decision-making process now bears closer examination. There are three possible analytical models for achieving this. These are the economic, psychological and consumer behaviour models. The consumer behaviour models usually a combination between the other two, which is why I chose to discuss it. Perception of a product plays an important part when it comes to choosing that I will now discuss ways suppliers use to influence them. The most prominent one is advertising, that comes in myriad forms and surrounds us everyday (Wikipedia). Another less obvious one is propaganda, either from society as a whole, or specific groups (Douglas&Isherwood, 1978; Foster, 2005; Gell, 1988; Jay, 1970; Wikipedia). I didn’t realise just how bombarded we are by ads until I picked up my October issue of Cosmopolitan and decided to count the pages taken up with full-page advertisements. Cosmopolitan is a popular woman’s magazine that caters for young women between the ages of 18 and 34. They have a total readership of 758 000 so it should give a good indication of how much influence advertising exerts on our lives. The magazine in question had 318pages including the front and back covers, of these pages 156 were taken up by full colour advertisements. Such an advertisement doesn’t come cheap with prices running at R41500, 00 for a single page and R99792, 00 for a double page spread on the first pages (Cosmo Website). No wonder companies go through so much trouble trying to figure out exactly what customers want (Foster 2005).
I also mentioned propaganda, for this essay, I will loosely define it as promotion. In this particular context, I took every time readers were told to buy a product as propaganda, but only counted it when actual prices were named and if I had not already counted them under the general advertisements. This added another 70 pages out of my total of 318 that were attempting to persuade readers to buy certain products. Together with the ‘pure’ advertisements, this meant that just over 71% of the magazine was dedicated to some type of product promotion.
These advertisements are aimed at a specific market and there exists a wide variety of advertisements, all thus aimed at certain demographic groups (Bisseker, 2002). Agencies take into account not only the demand for a certain product, but also the social structures that would support their campaign. This specialization is another way that culture affects the products we choose. Companies would not be able to play on things such as status and social stratification if they weren’t there to begin with (Barth, 1970; Gell, 1988; Jay, 1970; Wikipedia) . By making people feel envious of others and prompting them to emulate those they perceive as successful these companies are not creating a new niche, they are simply exploiting an existing one (Douglas&Isherwood, 1978). This particular technique for example would fail if used on the Muria in India since they have no wish to set themselves apart from the rest financially (Gell, 1988).
Conclusion
There may not be a group of people going around from town to town telling people what to wear and how to think, but that doesn’t mean that our social environment holds no sway in our behaviour. We are bombarded by cultural conditioning wherever we go, be it in the form of television, books or advertising and whether we’d like to admit it or not, it does play a role in the choices we make (Bisseker, 2002; Douglas&Isherwood, 1978; Foster,2005; Jay,1970) . At the end of the day it is still a choice however and nobody can blame a foolish purchase on clever advertisement (Douglas&Isherwood, 1978). Our choices spring from a variety of different factors and stimuli that we analyse to find the right one for us (Wikipedia), thus nobody else can take the blame if we make a mistake. In this essay, I have focussed primarily on material commercial goods, may be in part, because my culture tells me that is important (Foster, 2005).
References
Barth, F. 1970 ‘Management and Stratification’ in Firth, R. (ed.) Themes in Economic Anthropology Tavistock Publications pp.165-167
Cosmopolitain Magazine ‘Cosmopolitain Rate Card:Our Cosmo World’ http://www.cosmopolitan.co.za/main/intros/info/magspecs06/cosmo/cosmo_rate_card_2006.htm 01 October 2006
Designer Exposure, ‘Main Collection: Womens designer coats’ http://www.designerexposure.com/category/26a2/ALL 01 October 2006
Douglas, M. & Isherwood,B 1978 ‘Why People Want Goods’ in The World of Goods: Towards an Anthropology of Consumption London: Routledge pp.15-24
Douglas, M. & Isherwood,B 1978 ‘The Uses of Goods’ in The World of Goods: Towards an Anthropology of Consumption London: Routledge pp.56-70
Financial Mail, Bisseker, T. 2002 ‘ Media: It’s not all doom and gloom for the industry’ http://free.financialmail.co.za/report/adfocus2002/media/med11.htm 01 October 2006
Foster, R.J. 2005 ‘Commodity Futures: Labour, Love and Value’ in Anthropology Today 21(4): 8-12
Gell, A. 1988 ‘Newcomers to the world of Goods: Consumption among the Muria Gond’s’ in Appadurai,A. (ed.) The social life of things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.110-138
Jay, L. 1970 ‘Social and Economic Determinants in Behaviour’ in Firth,R. (ed.) Themes in Economic Anthropology Tavistock Publications pp.30-32
Petroglyph National Monument: Teacher resources ‘Needs: What do we need to survive?’
http://www.nps.gov/archive/petr/teachers/needtosurvive.htm 01 October 2006
Wikipedia, the free Encyclopedia ‘Consumer Behaviour’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_behaviour 01 October 2006
Wikepedia, the free Encyclopedia ‘Buyer decision process’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buyer_decision_processes" 01 October 2006
‘Material goods serve more than just our survival needs;
they meet our culturally defined wants as well” (Spradley 1997: 153)
Human beings are strange creatures; we need only a hand full of things in order to survive namely: water, food, shelter, clothing and companionship (Petroglyph). In theory, this would then mean that if these basic needs were met we would be content. Building on this one would also assume that the way in which these needs are met would have little effect on our happiness (Douglas & Isherwood; 1978). Reality on the other hand tells a completely different story, the way we attach value to an object bears little resemblance to either the production cost or the contribution it makes towards our survival (Foster; 2005). Advertisers have make millions by turning needs into wants (Bisseker; 2002). Sure, you may need a new jacket when winter rolls along, but only clever advertising or a brain tumour would make you spend US$4995.95 (Designer Exposure; 2006) on something that is going to be out of style next season. What we need to do then is look at the way in which we attach value to goods to better understand how our culture determines not only what we want, but also how badly we want it (Jay, 1970; Douglas&Isherwood).
Discussion
You would think that a few million years of evolution would mean that humans were immune to such trivial temptations such as advertising. After all, we did manage to put a man on the moon. Even I fell prey to Douglas&Isherwood’s theory when I went through the reading material. Although I was willing to admit that maybe other people fell into the advertisement trap, I was sure that I was immune. As I slipped into my Guess jeans, put on my YDE t-shirt and donned my Diesel sneakers however, I could feel doubt slowly creeping in through the back door. This made me take a look around and I could not help noticing how just about everything in my room was branded in some way, not even something as basic as toothpaste was left unaffected.
Brands invoke a strange sort of loyalty in the typical consumer, Foster (2005) even goes as far as calling it ‘loyalty beyond reason’. What is it that compels us to spend our hard-earned cash on something that technically either we don’t really need, or we could’ve gotten for a whole lot less? (Jay,1970; Barth,1970; Douglas&Isherwood) Part of the reason will undoubtedly be ‘real’ benchmarks such as quality and value for money, but studies on consumer behaviour shows that habit plays a greater roll that we would care to admit (Foster, 2005; Wikipedia). I am guilty of always buying a certain type of coffee and when there is none available, rather go without or have tea than risk another brand. There is nothing unique about my brand of coffee, you boil the water; add it to the soluble granules and coffee happens. Why then the reluctance to change?
Once a brand becomes imbedded in your routine and way of thinking, it is almost impossible to even think of using something else (Foster, 2005; Douglas&Isherwood, 1978). Until the next one catches your heart of course, when all the loyalty goes straight out the window (Wikipedia). What makes us stick to one brand or later makes us switch to another? One culprit is the influence outside groups such as friends and family have on us as consumers, another would be advertising. Apart from economic factors and actual quality considerations, these are the main reasons for choosing a particular product. Consumer behaviour studies spend vast amounts of time and money on figuring out exactly why we buy the things we do, along with how, when and what. This service is invaluable to producers since knowing what the public wants would give them an advantage when the time comes for them to sell their product (Wikipedia). In today’s highly competitive society, it becomes ever more important to make your product stand out above the rest, thus maintaining and expanding your market share (Foster, 2005).
Before we focus on the different ways this is achieved, let us look at the basic models for consumer behaviour, along with a basic models of buyer decision making. There are two fundamental models of consumer behaviour that can each be applied with varying degrees of success. The first of these is Howard&Sheth, they start by grouping the different stimuli that influence a consumer in the decision making process in order to better analyse their effect. The first; significative, refers to the material aspects of a product/service. The second; symbolic, refers to associations and ideas attached by the supplier. The third; social, refers to the ideology attached to a certain product by a culture and different social groups within this society. In this model, these inputs are seen as complete, with all possible stimuli of being grouped in one of them. The ‘outputs’ will of course then be the result of these stimuli on the consumer’s behaviour, or at least those that you can see. However knowing what influences a customer and what his or her end reaction is to all of this still doesn’t explain why they’ll buy a certain product (service). Howard&Sheth divides this decision making process into two areas. One; perceptual, referring to those involved with getting and managing information about the product (service). Two; learning, referring to the actual accumulation of knowledge, that led to the final decision.
The second model we will briefly discuss is known as the Engel-Kollat-Blackwell model and this follows a more mechanistic approach. They operate in the realm of evolutionary economics, where customers become causative forces operating within set conventions that are easy to pursue and implement. These conventions contain limited information and only a slight capacity for elaboration. This postulates that a customer identifies a certain need and after he or she has decided which group of goods satisfies it, sets a budget and uses this as the main driving force when selecting a particular item for consumption (Wikipedia). This very basic theory fails to take taste and other socially driven driving forces into account as named in Douglas&Isherwood (1978); Jay (1970); Barth (1970); Gell (1988).
These models provide us with part of the how, the actual decision-making process now bears closer examination. There are three possible analytical models for achieving this. These are the economic, psychological and consumer behaviour models. The consumer behaviour models usually a combination between the other two, which is why I chose to discuss it. Perception of a product plays an important part when it comes to choosing that I will now discuss ways suppliers use to influence them. The most prominent one is advertising, that comes in myriad forms and surrounds us everyday (Wikipedia). Another less obvious one is propaganda, either from society as a whole, or specific groups (Douglas&Isherwood, 1978; Foster, 2005; Gell, 1988; Jay, 1970; Wikipedia). I didn’t realise just how bombarded we are by ads until I picked up my October issue of Cosmopolitan and decided to count the pages taken up with full-page advertisements. Cosmopolitan is a popular woman’s magazine that caters for young women between the ages of 18 and 34. They have a total readership of 758 000 so it should give a good indication of how much influence advertising exerts on our lives. The magazine in question had 318pages including the front and back covers, of these pages 156 were taken up by full colour advertisements. Such an advertisement doesn’t come cheap with prices running at R41500, 00 for a single page and R99792, 00 for a double page spread on the first pages (Cosmo Website). No wonder companies go through so much trouble trying to figure out exactly what customers want (Foster 2005).
I also mentioned propaganda, for this essay, I will loosely define it as promotion. In this particular context, I took every time readers were told to buy a product as propaganda, but only counted it when actual prices were named and if I had not already counted them under the general advertisements. This added another 70 pages out of my total of 318 that were attempting to persuade readers to buy certain products. Together with the ‘pure’ advertisements, this meant that just over 71% of the magazine was dedicated to some type of product promotion.
These advertisements are aimed at a specific market and there exists a wide variety of advertisements, all thus aimed at certain demographic groups (Bisseker, 2002). Agencies take into account not only the demand for a certain product, but also the social structures that would support their campaign. This specialization is another way that culture affects the products we choose. Companies would not be able to play on things such as status and social stratification if they weren’t there to begin with (Barth, 1970; Gell, 1988; Jay, 1970; Wikipedia) . By making people feel envious of others and prompting them to emulate those they perceive as successful these companies are not creating a new niche, they are simply exploiting an existing one (Douglas&Isherwood, 1978). This particular technique for example would fail if used on the Muria in India since they have no wish to set themselves apart from the rest financially (Gell, 1988).
Conclusion
There may not be a group of people going around from town to town telling people what to wear and how to think, but that doesn’t mean that our social environment holds no sway in our behaviour. We are bombarded by cultural conditioning wherever we go, be it in the form of television, books or advertising and whether we’d like to admit it or not, it does play a role in the choices we make (Bisseker, 2002; Douglas&Isherwood, 1978; Foster,2005; Jay,1970) . At the end of the day it is still a choice however and nobody can blame a foolish purchase on clever advertisement (Douglas&Isherwood, 1978). Our choices spring from a variety of different factors and stimuli that we analyse to find the right one for us (Wikipedia), thus nobody else can take the blame if we make a mistake. In this essay, I have focussed primarily on material commercial goods, may be in part, because my culture tells me that is important (Foster, 2005).
References
Barth, F. 1970 ‘Management and Stratification’ in Firth, R. (ed.) Themes in Economic Anthropology Tavistock Publications pp.165-167
Cosmopolitain Magazine ‘Cosmopolitain Rate Card:Our Cosmo World’ http://www.cosmopolitan.co.za/main/intros/info/magspecs06/cosmo/cosmo_rate_card_2006.htm 01 October 2006
Designer Exposure, ‘Main Collection: Womens designer coats’ http://www.designerexposure.com/category/26a2/ALL 01 October 2006
Douglas, M. & Isherwood,B 1978 ‘Why People Want Goods’ in The World of Goods: Towards an Anthropology of Consumption London: Routledge pp.15-24
Douglas, M. & Isherwood,B 1978 ‘The Uses of Goods’ in The World of Goods: Towards an Anthropology of Consumption London: Routledge pp.56-70
Financial Mail, Bisseker, T. 2002 ‘ Media: It’s not all doom and gloom for the industry’ http://free.financialmail.co.za/report/adfocus2002/media/med11.htm 01 October 2006
Foster, R.J. 2005 ‘Commodity Futures: Labour, Love and Value’ in Anthropology Today 21(4): 8-12
Gell, A. 1988 ‘Newcomers to the world of Goods: Consumption among the Muria Gond’s’ in Appadurai,A. (ed.) The social life of things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.110-138
Jay, L. 1970 ‘Social and Economic Determinants in Behaviour’ in Firth,R. (ed.) Themes in Economic Anthropology Tavistock Publications pp.30-32
Petroglyph National Monument: Teacher resources ‘Needs: What do we need to survive?’
http://www.nps.gov/archive/petr/teachers/needtosurvive.htm 01 October 2006
Wikipedia, the free Encyclopedia ‘Consumer Behaviour’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_behaviour 01 October 2006
Wikepedia, the free Encyclopedia ‘Buyer decision process’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buyer_decision_processes" 01 October 2006
Something on development- Why, oh why development?
Why, oh why development?
Introduction.
A major obstacle when it comes to evaluating the success of development lie in it’s dual nature, in most cases there are both benefits and costs involved and ignoring either one causes problems (Barlett&Brown: 1992; Gardner&Lewis: 1996).
Conservatism of cultural relativism, in a development context.
By assuming that all cultural practices and ideas are good, relativists run the risk of denying help to those who might actually want it. It is easy to fail to take into account the society’s own view of their environment by assuming that they are content with their current situation (Barret: 2002; Eriksen: 1995).
Barret’s and Browns lists of benefits and costs of agricultural development.
In this article Barret&Brown outline both the positive and negative effects in three specific instances. The first refers to agricultural intensification in Costa Rica. Positive points mentioned include; increased productivity on every plot, tobacco being profitable earning as much as three times more per acre than their usual produce, more disposable income, that leads to more investment in livestock and lifestyle as well as eating better.
Negative effects include; a larger workload, longer work hours, more capital is needed per acre, increased problems with insects and plant diseases, greater risk and increased stress levels due to the increased risks involved (Barlett&Brown 1992:179-181).
Some of these effects are shared by the shepherds of Sardinia, but here the negative effects are compounded by the fact that farmers primarily from the Barbagia highlands resisted the transition and are now envied by the industrialised majority. The discontent felt by the ‘modern method’ shepherds when faced with longer hours and narrower profit margins are intensified when their lives are contrasted with those of ‘traditional’ shepherds. These traditional shepherds are envied because they are viewed as independent as well as producing a superior product (Barlett&Brown 1992: 181).
When the discussion turns to agricultural development in the rural United States on the other hand, the authors take a dim view. The only perceived benefit from industrialization seems to be that the farmers that do manage to survive now own larger quantities of land. This glimmer of hope is soon tarnished when compared to the multitude of negative connections listed. These include; lower prices for produce, expensive fertilizers and chemicals needed require more capital, rising cost of living and the decline in the overall number of farmers. Add to this the disillusion faced by farmers that have lost their farms due to competition and the dim view seems rather justified (Barlett&Brown 1992: 181).
Does development always improve people’s lives?
Development is not a one size fits all option that you can simply lay over a society’s current way of life and expect to walk away with marvellous results (Eriksen: 1995; Gardner&Lewis: 1996). There have been documented cases where failure to take the cultures own view into account has let to jumbled attempts to help people that never wanted it in the firs place (Eriksen: 1996). A clear example of this would be Eriksen’s discussion of a development project in Ecuador. An attempt was made to improve the production of guinea-pigs, but failing to take into account the symbolic aspect of these guinea pigs along with the burden these new techniques placed on the women, led to a dismal failure.
What are the alternatives?
The idealistic notion that everything inside a foreign culture is good and that we would be better of effectively ignoring them completely doesn’t work either (Barrett: 2002). There is always some form of interaction between cultures that leads to a certain degree of assimilation (Barlett&Brown: 1992). By exposing the farmers to trade, they are also exposed to materialism and refusing to help them survive this unknown landscape would do more harm than good. The role of anthropologists in development is not simply to look down on the companies making mistake and standing on a podium criticizing them from above, but rather to assist developers by offering insight to a culture’s practices and way of life (Eriksen: 1995). Such a contribution should lead to less failed attempts and improve the margin of success with successful ones (Eriksen: 1995; Gardner&Lewis: 1996).
Defining quality of life relativistically.
When an anthropologist becomes too concerned with defining a society and it’s quality of life relativistically, there is a risk of romanticising the culture to such an extent that even culturally harmful practices become glorified (Barrett: 2002). The obsession with being fair can swing in the opposite direction by assuming that all members of a society are satisfied with their current quality of life, regardless of the actual truth (Barret: 2002; Eriksen:1995).
Conclusion.
Development in itself is neither good nor evil, it offers the potential to improve the lives of people, but also carries a certain cost that needs to be paid (Eriksen: 18995; Gardner& Lewis: 1996). At the end of the day though, the onus still rests on the countries that are to be ‘developed’ to decide if the rewards are great enough to justify the price that will have to be paid (Gardner&Lewis: 1996). No matter how good the intentions of the developers, failing to take social structures and participation on the part of the ‘developing’ into account cannot be successful (Eriksen: 1995).
References.
Barlett, P.J. & Brown, P.F. 1992 ‘Agricultural Development and the Quality of Life’ in Podolefsky and Brown (eds) Applying Anthropology New York: McGraw Hill
Barret, S. R. 2002 Anthropology: A student’s guide to theory and method University of Toronto Press Incorporated: Canada pp.157-158
Eriksen, T.H. 1995 Small places, Large Issues London: Pluto Press pp. 243-245
Gardener, K. & Lewis, D. 1996 Anthropology, Development and the Post Modern Challenge London: Pluto Press pp. 93-102
Introduction.
A major obstacle when it comes to evaluating the success of development lie in it’s dual nature, in most cases there are both benefits and costs involved and ignoring either one causes problems (Barlett&Brown: 1992; Gardner&Lewis: 1996).
Conservatism of cultural relativism, in a development context.
By assuming that all cultural practices and ideas are good, relativists run the risk of denying help to those who might actually want it. It is easy to fail to take into account the society’s own view of their environment by assuming that they are content with their current situation (Barret: 2002; Eriksen: 1995).
Barret’s and Browns lists of benefits and costs of agricultural development.
In this article Barret&Brown outline both the positive and negative effects in three specific instances. The first refers to agricultural intensification in Costa Rica. Positive points mentioned include; increased productivity on every plot, tobacco being profitable earning as much as three times more per acre than their usual produce, more disposable income, that leads to more investment in livestock and lifestyle as well as eating better.
Negative effects include; a larger workload, longer work hours, more capital is needed per acre, increased problems with insects and plant diseases, greater risk and increased stress levels due to the increased risks involved (Barlett&Brown 1992:179-181).
Some of these effects are shared by the shepherds of Sardinia, but here the negative effects are compounded by the fact that farmers primarily from the Barbagia highlands resisted the transition and are now envied by the industrialised majority. The discontent felt by the ‘modern method’ shepherds when faced with longer hours and narrower profit margins are intensified when their lives are contrasted with those of ‘traditional’ shepherds. These traditional shepherds are envied because they are viewed as independent as well as producing a superior product (Barlett&Brown 1992: 181).
When the discussion turns to agricultural development in the rural United States on the other hand, the authors take a dim view. The only perceived benefit from industrialization seems to be that the farmers that do manage to survive now own larger quantities of land. This glimmer of hope is soon tarnished when compared to the multitude of negative connections listed. These include; lower prices for produce, expensive fertilizers and chemicals needed require more capital, rising cost of living and the decline in the overall number of farmers. Add to this the disillusion faced by farmers that have lost their farms due to competition and the dim view seems rather justified (Barlett&Brown 1992: 181).
Does development always improve people’s lives?
Development is not a one size fits all option that you can simply lay over a society’s current way of life and expect to walk away with marvellous results (Eriksen: 1995; Gardner&Lewis: 1996). There have been documented cases where failure to take the cultures own view into account has let to jumbled attempts to help people that never wanted it in the firs place (Eriksen: 1996). A clear example of this would be Eriksen’s discussion of a development project in Ecuador. An attempt was made to improve the production of guinea-pigs, but failing to take into account the symbolic aspect of these guinea pigs along with the burden these new techniques placed on the women, led to a dismal failure.
What are the alternatives?
The idealistic notion that everything inside a foreign culture is good and that we would be better of effectively ignoring them completely doesn’t work either (Barrett: 2002). There is always some form of interaction between cultures that leads to a certain degree of assimilation (Barlett&Brown: 1992). By exposing the farmers to trade, they are also exposed to materialism and refusing to help them survive this unknown landscape would do more harm than good. The role of anthropologists in development is not simply to look down on the companies making mistake and standing on a podium criticizing them from above, but rather to assist developers by offering insight to a culture’s practices and way of life (Eriksen: 1995). Such a contribution should lead to less failed attempts and improve the margin of success with successful ones (Eriksen: 1995; Gardner&Lewis: 1996).
Defining quality of life relativistically.
When an anthropologist becomes too concerned with defining a society and it’s quality of life relativistically, there is a risk of romanticising the culture to such an extent that even culturally harmful practices become glorified (Barrett: 2002). The obsession with being fair can swing in the opposite direction by assuming that all members of a society are satisfied with their current quality of life, regardless of the actual truth (Barret: 2002; Eriksen:1995).
Conclusion.
Development in itself is neither good nor evil, it offers the potential to improve the lives of people, but also carries a certain cost that needs to be paid (Eriksen: 18995; Gardner& Lewis: 1996). At the end of the day though, the onus still rests on the countries that are to be ‘developed’ to decide if the rewards are great enough to justify the price that will have to be paid (Gardner&Lewis: 1996). No matter how good the intentions of the developers, failing to take social structures and participation on the part of the ‘developing’ into account cannot be successful (Eriksen: 1995).
References.
Barlett, P.J. & Brown, P.F. 1992 ‘Agricultural Development and the Quality of Life’ in Podolefsky and Brown (eds) Applying Anthropology New York: McGraw Hill
Barret, S. R. 2002 Anthropology: A student’s guide to theory and method University of Toronto Press Incorporated: Canada pp.157-158
Eriksen, T.H. 1995 Small places, Large Issues London: Pluto Press pp. 243-245
Gardener, K. & Lewis, D. 1996 Anthropology, Development and the Post Modern Challenge London: Pluto Press pp. 93-102
Forever odd- Dean Koontz
I bought this book at the supermarket. so let's just say that my expectations couldn't have been much lower than they were when I started reading this book.
Never the less I just finished reading this and really enjoyed it.
It truly surpased my expectations.
This obviously isn't Hemmingway, so don't go into it expecting an absolute masterpiece. However, it is an entertaining read, filled to the brim with
witty remarks and dead on sarcasm.
It's about a guy (Odd Thomas) who's able to see dead people and
before you start thinking sixth sense, stop right there!
The entire book is written from Odd's perspective and just the way it is told
alone, is enough reason to read the book.
Every page sweeps you along and you're never left in a lull waiting for the next
thing to happen, so there's never enough empty space to get bored.
There isn't too much you could say without completely giving away the plot
, but if you enjoy it when a writer's able to play with his words, then this is for you.
Never the less I just finished reading this and really enjoyed it.
It truly surpased my expectations.
This obviously isn't Hemmingway, so don't go into it expecting an absolute masterpiece. However, it is an entertaining read, filled to the brim with
witty remarks and dead on sarcasm.
It's about a guy (Odd Thomas) who's able to see dead people and
before you start thinking sixth sense, stop right there!
The entire book is written from Odd's perspective and just the way it is told
alone, is enough reason to read the book.
Every page sweeps you along and you're never left in a lull waiting for the next
thing to happen, so there's never enough empty space to get bored.
There isn't too much you could say without completely giving away the plot
, but if you enjoy it when a writer's able to play with his words, then this is for you.
Wednesday 29 November 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)