From ???@??? Sat Feb 28 09:43:48 1998
To: positive-futures@igc.apc.org
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 12:57:24
From: Gordon Rands
Message-Id: <3.0.3.16.19980227125724.086f8dea@email.psu.edu>
Subject:
Review of "Affluenza"
About a week ago I mentioned that I had written a review of Affluenza for a
journal. Arnie and Nick asked me to post the review to the positive
futures list. I replied to them that I would be glad to once the issue of
the journal actually came out. It arrived yesterday, so below you will
find the review. It was published in
Organization & Environment, volume
11, number 1, March 1998, pp. 107-110. The journal is published by Sage
Publications, in Thousand Oaks California.
------------------------------------------------
Film Review
John de Graff, Vivia Boe and colleagues, Producers.
Affluenza [video documentary produced for the Public Broadcasting System]
September, 1997.
(Distributed by Bullfrog Films, 1 800 543 FROG).
Af-flu-en-za n. 1. An epidemic of stress, overwork, shopping and debt
caused by dogged pursuit of the American Dream. 2. The bloated, sluggish
and unfulfilled feeling that results from one's efforts to keep up with
the Joneses. 3. An unsustainable addiction to economic growth. 4. A film that could change your life.
Defining and spreading the word about this disease to an infected public
is the mission of the hour long documentary, Affluenza. Although this
malady might once have been labeled stress or greed, Affluenza demonstrates
that the syndrome is much more complex. It is related to many of the
social and environmental problems that exist today, either as a cause, a
result, or both. The attempt by the producers to help viewers understand
this complex interrelationship is both one of the greatest strengths and
most serious weaknesses of the film.
The first two-thirds of Affluenza is structured around the symptoms of the
disease: shopping fever, chronic stress, hypercommercialism, “material boys
and girls” (marketing to and consumption by children), a rash of
bankruptcies, fractured families, “social scars” (a loss of community), and
“global infection” (socially and environmentally unsustainable practice).
For each symptom the film provides several examples, comments by experts,
and several factoids, all in a fast paced style. For example, under
“global infection” we learn that one-fifth of the world’s people live in
absolute poverty, that since 1950 residents of the United States alone have
used more resources than all people who have lived on earth before them,
and that each American uses twenty tons of resources a year.
Former Harvard Business School marketing professor David Korten, author of
When Corporations Rule the World (1995), tells viewers that
Perhaps the most intriguing segment on a symptom may be that on marketing
products to children. We hear a consultant speaking at a “Kid Power”
convention at Disney World, where he gives tips to marketers on “branding
children”, and declares that “anti-social behavior in pursuit of a product
is a good thing”.
The program’s review of the wide range of symptoms of affluenza is
laudable but problematic. As a means of alerting viewers to the problem,
the broad scope provides something for everyone. Almost all viewers will
find one or more of their personal problems or social concerns in the
spotlight. From a persuasive standpoint, this can help spark concern for
and attention to the entire issue. In addition, a large number of
individuals who have been writing about these issues are introduced to
viewers. These include Korten, Alex Molnar, Richard Swenson, Michael
Jacobson, and Laurie Mazur. Many ordinary citizens are interviewed as
well, including a Colorado couple whom affluenza brought to the edge of
bankruptcy, a conservative evangelical minister concerned about the
spriritual impacts of materialism, and two Washington state high school
students who wrote and produced “Barbie Get Real”, a play spoofing the
hollowness of the consumer lifestyle portrayed in childrens' toys.
The very number of symptoms poses a problem, however. The amount of time
which can be given to each is quite limited, and the spotlight feels more
like a strobe light. As a result, when the review of the symptoms is
finished the viewer can be left feeling overwhelmed and exhausted. The
fast paced production style -- interspersed with dramatized segments in a
doctor’s office that attempt to maintain the “sickness” theme -- were
somewhat annoying to me. To be fair, however, the show kept the attention
of three of my children much better than would a typical documentary with a
serious tone throughout.
In fact, the feeling of being overwhelmed and exhausted may have been
intended, for just when the exhaustion is beginning to set in, the show
undergoes a change of pace as it begins to investigate the producers’ main
prescription for prevention and cure: voluntary simplicity. The producers
recognize that the notion of a simpler, less consumptive lifestyle may be a
bitter pill for some viewers to take, so they begin with a brief review of
the practice of by historians David Shi and Susan Strasser. Social critic
Jeremy Rifkin notes that in the 19th century, consumption itself
(tuberculosis) was a bad thing. A quick review of the notion of simplicity
in American culture describes the interest in simple living at the turn of
the 20th century, the involuntary simplicity of the Great Depression, the
post World War II consumer boom fueled by government-housing and highway
policies, the counterculture movement of the 1960s and 1970s, and Jimmy
Carter’s 1979 speech in which he criticized the increasing materialism of
American society. But as Shi aptly observes for viewers, “part of Jimmy
Carter’s failure was his lack of recognition of how deep and widespread the
consumer culture had become”.
And so, rather than turning down the thermostat and wearing sweaters,
American voters rejected a vaguely defined call for cooperation, community,
and conservation -- “freezing in the dark” as Ronald Reagan described it --
opting instead for Reagan’s easily grasped vision of Morning in America,
based on competition, rugged individualism, and consumption. But, the
producers tell us, interest in voluntary simplicity is again on the rise
and may represent the way out of our reawakening sense of national malaise.
Before exploring the 1990s version of voluntary simplicity, the program
has -- what else? -- a commercial break. On PBS? Ah, but these are not
just any commercials. Rather, they are “uncommercials” from the
“Adbusters”project at The Media Foundation in Vancouver, British Columbia.
We see several examples of this group’s parodies of television commercials,
which have been declined by most stations and networks even when the
project has offered to pay for air time. One ad presents a claymation pig
occupying much of a map of North America accompanied by facts about per
capita consumption. Another portrays a dinosaur made of toy motor vehicles
collapsing under its own weight. The work of the Foundation is summarized,
including its sponsorship of “Buy Nothing Day”. This segment presents one
of the many subtle ironies in the film, in which individuals are given “I
Cut Up My Credit Cards” cards and “Enough” pins for their support of the
group’s activities. Even nonconsumption and anti-materialism must, it
appears, be accompanied by material rewards.
The questionable ability of material goods to bring us happiness is
reinforced as Ted Halstead of Redefining Progress reviews the difference in
trendlines of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and the Genuine Progress
Indicator (GPI). While the GDP has been rising fairly steadily, and often
spectacularly, since 1950, the GPI -- which adds in the value of services
ignored by the GDP such as volunteerism and housework and subtracts the
cost of harms such as pollution as well as remediative expenses such as
divorce lawyers’ and doctors’ fees -- has been falling since 1973. Thus,
the producers imply, the average citizen is worse off today than
twenty-five years ago.
This observation provides the introduction to the heart of the cure:
individual efforts to simplify and take control of one’s own life. The
work of the late Joe Dominguez (to whom the show is dedicated) and Vicki
Robin, authors of the best-selling Your Money or Your Life (1992), is
spotlighted. We see Dominguez and Robin discussing their work, meeting
with the staff of The New Road Map Foundation (funded with the book’s
proceeds), appearing on Ophrah, and learn that they each comfortably get by
on an income of $7000 per year. The show takes us to a workshop on
downshifting at Nike headquarters attended by 100 people, led by former
Portland corporate counsel Dick Roy, who with his wife Jeanne founded the
Northwest Earth Institute to provide such workshops. We visit a backyard
picnic of a Portland co-housing community whose members frequently share
meals, child care, and neighborhood work projects. Author Duane Elgin
tells us that a culture of simplicity is beginning to take root, and trend
watcher Gerald Celente informs us that voluntary simplicity is going
global. Celente suggests that 5% of American adults now practice voluntary
simplicity and projects that the number will rise to 15% by the year 2000.
Furthermore, the interest in simplicity is growing even more rapidly among
today’s teens and pre-teens, whom Celente suggests will be tomorrow’s
revolutionaries.
While the attention devoted to voluntary simplicity is more extensive than
that devoted to any of the symptoms of affluenza, it only begins to give
viewers a feel for what a simpler lifestyle might entail. The producers
recognized that Affluenza could only provide an introduction to voluntary
simplicity and are at work on a followup program, originally titled Living
Better on Less. This program, which is envisioned as a pilot for a
possible series, will focus on how to live frugally and simply. The very
idea that there could be sufficient audience interest in such a series --
even in Seattle, the hotbed of the voluntary simplicity movement -- is
astounding and encouraging. Interest in the followup program is strong; it
is now titled Beyond Affluenza, in light of viewer response to Affluenza.
According to DeGraaf, at least seven local PBS affiliates reported more
than 100 phone calls from viewers about the show, with more than 95% of
them being positive. At Seattle’s KCTS the program generated 220 phone
calls; in a normal week, the most calls received about a show is 30. That
the program appealed to viewers with varying political viewpoints is
indicated by the three cities with the highest viewer phone response:
liberal San Francisco and Minneapolis and conservative Salt Lake City.
Is Affluenza just what the doctor ordered for your class, team, or
community group? Although the production has its weaknesses, it is,
nonetheless, a very effective introduction to the issues of overconsumption
and voluntary simplicity. Students in my business and society classes were
required to watch the show when it aired. It sparked a good discussion, and
one student later chose affluenza as the topic for a speech in another
course. Adding to the program’s value is the extensive amount of
supporting information available at the show’s web site. Pointing your
browser to http://www.pbs.org/kcts/affluenza/ will open up a veritable
medicine chest of resources: books, periodicals, organizations, and online
discussion lists that explore the various symptoms diagnosed and treatments
prescribed by the show. A viewer’s guide and K-12 teacher’s guide are
particularly useful for those wishing to engage others in a discussion of
the issues.
In my opinion, attention to these issues will only increase in the future.
That a simpler, less consumptive lifestyle is seen as a possible cure for
the various problems that the program describes suggests that voluntary
simplicity will grow as a lifestyle choice and as a social movement. As
such, it is potentially more challenging to business than are any of the
movements associated with the invididual problems. Those in business, and
those in academia who study business, would be well advised to become
familiar with this issue.
Affluenza closes with Scott Simon making two assertions. The first, that
“earth could support the world’s population at nearly our living standards
if we revised many of our consumption and spending habits,” will be
disputed by proponents of differing ideologies. Some will argue that even
at dramatically reduced levels of consumption and increased levels of
productive eco-efficiency, human population must be reduced to achieve a
sustainable future. Many more will argue that revising spending and
consumption habits as the proponents of voluntary simplicity suggest will
in fact destroy our current standard of living. The challenge which
Affluenza so nicely poses for the latter group is whether society should
choose to emphasize quantity or quality of life. The second assertion,
although perhaps overstated, should appeal to viewers of almost all
ideological persuasions: “affluenza is one malady we can cure by spending
less money, not more.” That simple statement has enormous implications for
the practice of business in the 21st century.
-- Gordon P. Rands
Pennsylvania State University
REFERENCES
Dominguez, J., & Robin, V. (1992). Your Money or Your Life: Transforming
your relationship with money and achieving financial independence. New
York: Viking.
{obtainable from: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0140167153/intpbusinessbookA/001-9760340-8670169 }
Korten, D. (1995). When Corporations Rule the World. West Hartford, CT, and
San Francisco, CA: Kumarian/Berrett-Koehler.
{obtainable from: http://www.opengroup.com/open/bfbooks/188/1887208003.shtml }