In one of my gastronomy classes, we are currently studying classes and political influence. The current issue I am trying to wrap my head around is this: proponents of market economics (and western thought in general) suggest that consumer-driven choice can affect change in a society. For instance, if we want to change our food system to something healthier and more sustainable, "voting with our dollars" is the way to go. Basically, the theory is that by giving money to those producers that are aligning themselves with our ideals that those ideals will take over in a market setting. This is often done through shopping at very conscientious markets like Whole Foods or Trader Joe's. We assume that producers will eventually change their offerings to meet our monetary demands.
However, as we do so, a question arises. Are we really affecting change or merely setting ourselves and our class (well-off financially, educated, and frequently white) apart from general consumption? Will Whole Foods really change american buying patterns or just help us feel superior in our organic, sustainable, educated, white store? Will our consumer decisions do anything for the less well-heeled? Can systemic change be brought about effectively through individual actions or is a more holistic and politic approach called for?
A place for friends to share their thoughts about philosophy, art, literature, science, theology, and culture.
This is an interesting question. I have often talked about voting with my dollars when it comes to art--specifically with movies: the ones I will watch in the theaters, rent, or frankly spend my time on at all. But while I refuse to watch Transformers, or other films I feel should not be made, am I really impacting the industry with my measily money offering? Clearly, Michael Bay has been enormously successful in terms of $$$. So will my choice really lead to better films being made?
ReplyDeleteOf course, I imagine that the argument is not that one individually will make a change. Rather, it is a mindset that one believes if many cultivated, then the change would occur. The change might now be that the industry or market no longer has poor films/food, or even that poor films/food will become the minority; rather, there is a greater place made for the audience that cares about quality food/art. On the whole, a greater supply of this quality stuff is there for the conscientious audience. So the Whole Foods/Trader Joe's might not be a "step along the takeover," but the end of the mindset (stores popping up that cater to those customers, and provide something great for them). So the change is far more narrow, creating a niche market that sets us apart as you suggested. I think this food case is more interesting because generally speaking the higher quality food is more expensive; the film, at least as far as I know, has an equivalent price to the poor film. Other classes, poorer classes, would resist the high prices of the quality food. But as the quality food became more popular, you'd think the natural foods markets could achieve greater economies of scale and so price their items cheaper, appealing to lower income families by degrees. But the values might not be shared by those lower classes; they might think that marshmallows taste like science. So there are other parts to the equation. Good luck trying to get some folks to eat quinoa!
What would be a "more holistic and political approach"? I am curious as to what the alternative is that you had in mind.
I suppose it would be enacting systemic changes that nudge the market in a certain way - shifting subsidization practices, changing laws, altering government-issued health guidelines...
ReplyDelete