Thoughts on Nantucket

(As a child my parents would take my two brothers and I to Nantucket every summer. After my freshman year at Williams I rented “a closet like” living space with three of my friends from high school and worked at the Nantucket Golf Club, the club created by the “new wealth” generation in Fabrikant’s article.)

 The defining moment in the war between economic and cultural capital, “New Money” versus “Old Money,” on Nantucket Island came in early 2000 with the death of Walter Beinecke. Mr. Beinecke, who had grown up on the island, spent the second half of his life preserving the island by buying up land and pushing building codes to preserve the simplicity of the island (keeping the island visually in line with the cultural taste of the old wealth). Mr. Beinecke’s work made it a little harder for the wealthy to flaunt their economic capital by restricting building sizes. He also had a big hand in baring corporate brands from the island.

Not soon after his death, Ralph Lauren opened a “Purple Label” Polo store (the first chain allowed on the island) in the center of town. Other high priced chains soon followed including: Lilly Pulitzer (think painfully bright pastel clothing) and Vineyard Vines. These new stores not only brought corporate America to Nantucket, but it also signaled an abrupt change in island spending habits. Luxury brands gave the “new money” generation a simplistic way to flaunt their economic capital to make up for their shortfall in cultural capital. Loosened ordinances were replacing the “old wealth” taste for “Nantucket Red” with the “new wealth” taste for bright pink and neon green.

One of, and maybe only, Nantucket’s impacts on the fashion world has been its connection to the color “Nantucket Red.” “Nantucket Red” is a worn in shade of pink that perfectly sums up the humble consumption habits of the islands pre-hyper rich community. I agree with Fabrikant’s article in that the “Beinecke era” tended to consume moderately and give off the impression that they consumed even less. They bought “Nantucket Red ” instead of pink because; “A family name alone was enough to place someone in the pecking order” (Fabrikant, p. 170). The difference in economic capital between summer residents was so minuscule at that time that cultural capital dictated that they all dress down to give off the appearance of being “natural.”

For the “New Money” generation of Nantucket the importance of acquiring social capital on island has not disappeared. The hyper-rich have followed the old guard in their use of philanthropy to improve their social credentials. When comparing the philanthropic activities of the “old money” generation to those philanthropic activities of the “new money” generation Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of “habitus” comes to life. Every summer, for as long as I can remember, a committee of summer residents has organized a show by the Boston Pops as a fundraiser for the island’s only hospital. The old gentility of the island were raised in an environment that allowed them to grow an appreciation and understanding of classical music (or they want to give off that impression to their peers) so they geared their philanthropy to fit their “habitus.” In the past few years a new charity has sprung up around helping finance Nantucket high school’s new hockey team. When I was working at the golf club, a few of the members had paid to have members of the New York Rangers (National Hockey League) come to Nantucket to participate in an exhibition game as part of the fundraiser. While these members had the economic capital to fly in professional hockey players for a fundraiser, their habitus guided them to hold a fundraiser that lacked Bourdieu’s standard of cultural capital.

With a lack of cultural capital and an abundance of economic capital the new generation of Nantucket’s wealthy have both created and adopted simplistic signals to distinguish themselves. One of the most commonly used signals, as pointed out in Fabrikant’s article, is their use of physical exclusion. Because they are unable to take part in cultural exclusion (historic clubs and famous home addresses) the new hyper rich are building clubs and homes that are well off the beaten path. It is difficult to be physically exclusive on an island that is just short of thirteen miles across, but somehow they succeed. Some of the largest and most expensive homes on the island are located in areas where the dirt roads are so maze-like that it makes it impossible for an outsider to find their bearings. These new found millionaires / billionaires have taken their childhood in the suburbs and used what they learned as a simplistic way to differentiate themselves from Nantucket’s old gentility.

While the “hyper-rich” seem to have a substantial lead in their class battle with the Nantucket’s “old money,” the older generation has an advantage in a signal for which the new generation is able to quantify and thus recognize: time. Being a vacation spot, summer residents are only on Nantucket for a maximum of a few months a year. Because of this summer residents are constantly trying to justify their belonging on Nantucket by quantifying how long they have been going there (After writing this sentence I looked to the top of this journal and realized that I had quantified how long I had been going to Nantucket in the first paragraph). “ How long have you been coming to Nantucket?” is a very common question asked to size up another persons class in the early stages of an interaction. When summer residents don’t have the opportunity to vocalize their years on Nantucket they have symbols to show it.

While it currently it cost over $500,000 dollars to join the Nantucket Golf Club, it wasn’t uncommon to see members driving jeeps and old station wagons, covered in bumper stickers. These members where worth millions and sometimes billions of dollars and they drove cars that were on their last breath. They drove these cars not only because driving old cars was a sign of Nantucket’s “old money” generation, but more importantly because of the stickers around the car’s bumper. Each season the Island sells a restricted number of permits to car owners that allows them to drive on beaches. These permits are bumper stickers that very in color and have the year of issue in large typeface. A collection of these permits along one’s bumper is a non-vocal signal of how long one has been vacationing on Nantucket. By replacing deteriorating car, members would be giving up a signal that is often deemed more valuable than their and their passanger’s safety. The range of cultural capital has become so vast on Nantucket that individuals have to quantify their level of belonging to be understood.

It is no mystery that what you wear communicates a lot, whether intentionally or unintentionally, to those around you. It is no accident that in times of war President Bush speaks before American wearing a red tie and during negotiations at Camp David he is seen wearing a blue tie. This week there has been a lot of talk in the news about the Republican Party spending 150,000 dollars on Sarah Palin's wardrobe. While it is embarrassing for the party that such information was leaked, they recognized how important Palin's appearance would be in the national spotlight. Today, Drudge reported that one of the regular places which Michelle Obama purchases clothing for the campaign trail is J crew; a clothing line often associated with young, rich, white America (think Dawson's Creek). The first lady elect, for a campaign manager, is a brand that is supposed to, hopefully, improve the brand at the top of the ticket. To win the race for the White House, Senator Obama's brand has to appeal to a majority of the American voting population which is the white middle class. It is no accident that Michelle's wardrobe, brand association, is often thought to go hand in hand with white America. What is interesting though it that it is associated with, a smaller voting block, rich America. I guess our "reference groups" really have been stretched vertically. 

Consumerism and its Role in the 2008 Elections

 

 

The current presidential race between Barack Obama and John McCain has had a great deal of overlap with our readings in consumerism so far. At the most basic level, a presidential race is about a candidate (a good) using many forms of advertising to convince the electorate (consumers) that they have the greatest use value. The race leading up to the election is about the candidates’ ability to self-brand in order to distinguish themselves from their opponents and win over loyal consumers. Then, on Tuesday November 4^th, it is often the candidate’s brand that makes a majority of voters make their final decisions. It is somewhat startling that after a year of campaigning it is only a snapshot of a candidate that dictates which lever the voter pulls 3 weeks from now.

            Joseph Davis, in his critique on self- branding, argues that one reason central to the explosion of individual commodification in society is a shift from social integration to “interpersonal intimacy.” People are focusing more on their inward self instead of seeing themselves through social organizations. In terms of the politics, people’s political affiliations are less dictated by the group’s consensus and instead are more focused on making up their own mind. The first and only time that I have come across a unionized voter was when I was door knocking last January in New Hampshire. He was a retired man in his late 70s who had been a member of the same carpenters union for his entire life. The union had endorsed John Edwards and the man told me that he was going to vote with the union, as he had his entire life, because they had always provided for him and his family. He exemplified the “organization man” of the past. If Davis’ observation is correct, then block voting according to organizational affiliations must have been much more common when this man first joined his carpenters union. Because of the decreased participation in social organizations; group endorsements have become purely a symbolic message to undecided voters.

            I would agree with Davis that it is fair to estimate that more than half of the American electorate’s decision will come down to “impulse.” But, using Davis’ concepts, I wonder if voter to voter dialogue now has more or less of an impact on the outcome of presidential elections that it has had in the past. In Davis’ past scenario it would seem as though while voters would probably engage in more open discussion with other group members they would often also vote in line with the group consensus. This explanation also makes sense when you think about how much more divided the electoral map used to be between red and blue states. While in the modern scenario, still following Davis, voters are unwilling to debate as openly (to protect their brand) and the voters decision a made internally, often by some media created image. So far, there has been much talk between both campaigns about the desire to increase candidate to voter and the voter to voter dialogue. McCain originally advocated for 10 town hall style debates and Obama has rallied a sizable army of volunteers to talk face to face with undecided voters. But, as Davis would point out, as presidential candidate’s cry for increased dialogue they are simultaneously improving their brand image.

            Before Election Day comes only a very small fraction of American voters will have physically interacted with any of the Presidential candidates. While Debord would argue that the spectacle would have a played a role in such meetings, it is with the other 99% of voters who have not met the candidates that the spectacle will play its largest role. Debord writes in his book, The Society of the Spectacle, that a consumer’s decision is made for him or her in the “sphere of production” and it is the spectacle that later gives justification to that choice. Consumers for Debord are incapable of making an unadulterated decision because the spectacle is the only source from which society will listen.  Thus, it is important for campaigns to use talking points, repetition, and many other tactics to make the spectacle work in their candidates favor. McCain wants the spectacle to portray Obama as risky and socialist. Obama needs the spectacle to paint McCain in line with Bush and images of an old insider.

            I would say that the campaigns not only get help from the spectacle, but they have a hand in dictating its direction and keeping it going. When listening to a political robo call, computer operated telemarketing, or watching a political add with strong subliminal imagery it is hard seems that the spectacle is really a “negation of life.” These forms of the spectacle show blunt arguments against the opposing candidate that rarely involve any kind of truth, but instead try to produce a gut instinct in voters. Such tactics have been used on Obama, saying that he supported late term abortions, and on McCain, saying that he supported reducing troop funding. The final goal is for the spectacle to communicate a favorable outcome for their candidate when production ends on Election Day. For my part I hope that the American electorate is not so malleable, but I recognize that this is probably not the case.

Vineyard Vines: Live the Good Life Campaign

Only in the last 4 years has Vineyard Vines become the epitome of the east coast “preppy.” What began as a small scale tie shop has become a large scale brand that carries everything wearable and pastel. While it is not as common at Williams, Vineyard Vine’s explosive growth was hard to miss at the boarding school where I spent my high school days. As a freshman is ties were worn by some of the boys, but on campus there was little brand recognition to speak of. By my senior year Vineyard Vines had expanded to producing everything wearable and it seemed that there was not a boy or girl on campus who did not own something with its name. In only four years not only had Vineyard Vines gained substantial brand recognition, but the brand had already established itself as a way of life. It was a way of life that was best summed up by the brand’s slogan: “Live the Good Life.”

 In the book No Logo its author, Naomi Klein, explained the process of building a brand. She said that to build a brand image, marketers study their target culture and then “reflect by projecting these ideas and images back on the culture as ‘extensions’ of their brands.” The brand improves its value by adding desired bits of culture to its persona. In the early years of the company, its marketing team took a very literal approach what Klein was observing.

 Vineyard Vines encouraged customer’s to send in pictures of themselves, friends, and family “Living the Good Life” in their ties. Then they would choose the pictures that best exemplified their brand and place them throughout the catalog alongside a caption (this was years before Vineyard Vines began also using models in their catalogs). Customers sent in pictures of weddings and other special events; time with friends and family; pictures of pets and children. All of the pictures chosen came from memorable, happy events set in beautiful locations. Vineyard Vines took some of the happiest days of their customers’ lives and projected it directly back on them. This catalog campaign succeeded in connecting their customers’ best memories with their brand.

 The second branding success, which I believe Vineyard Vines did not realize immediately, was the attraction of customers’ to the founders, Shep and Ian’s, story. Shep and Ian, brothers, founded the company after deciding that they could not deal with working in New York City finance any longer. They quit their jobs, moved out to Cape Cod and started a small company that now allows them to freedom to boat around in warm weather year round. They live the dream of every prep-schooler / Ivy Leaguer / I-Banker. They have wealth, success, and they have been able to escape to a low pressure career path. By buying Vineyard Vines clothing he or she is trying to buy into Shep and Ian’s lifestyle. Soon after realizing the impact of their founder’s story, the company began adding full page stories, with pictures, on people who also lived equally enviable lives (i.e. Caribbean resort managers, island bed and breakfast owners …). The catalog has evolved into a magazine telling the story of a particular lifestyle and the people who live it.

 The final step of Vineyard Vine’s seemingly flawless creation of a brand image has been, in the words of Klein, the “branding of outside culture as well- by sponsoring cultural events…” They recently began sponsoring sailing events both on the east coast and farther down south. For the most part, the races that they have chosen to sponsor are long standing traditions. To bring meaning to the brand, they have chosen a few races that mean a great deal to the people who are involved. At the same time it seems that Vineyard Vines is intent on keeping their brand just far enough in the background as to keep from ruining the events by making participants feel as though they are involved in an advertising tool. Many of the sailing races have kept their original names, but the Vineyard Vines logo is in plain sight on the races’ posters.

 As a brand, Vineyard Vines has been a textbook success. Even as a small and young company, they have treated their image as though it were a “mega brand.” Following the branding successes of Polo and Lacoste, they have used all of the same tactics, but shaped them to work on a small scale. Their products exemplify a way of life. While the company sells sweaters, jackets, and other warm weather gear I have never seen any sign of cold weather in their catalogs. Protecting their brand means never diverging from comfortable temperatures on a seascape of blue.

Thursday Night at Wal-Mart

For Fridays fieldwork assignment I decided spend an hour walking the aisles of the local North Adams Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart has always been very confusing to me as a consumer. I have a gut reaction of hatred to not only what Wal-Mart stands for as corporation, but also as a retail space, yet I always find something to buy there. What is even more confusing is that while Wal-Mart and Target are almost identical in every way, I have only ambivalent feelings toward the latter.  Klein would tell me that my extreme difference in taste for identical brands have come from the difference in branding styles. Target spends a great deal of money on advertising that is very reminiscent to the advertising used buy Old Navy or the Gap: “Stylish but also simple enough to be navigated by the everyday person.” While Wal-Mart seems to have spent much less on branding, choosing to only to highlight its inexpensive nature. The second reason for hating Wal-Mart likely tied the media’s love for pointing out the faults in mega corporations. In the past decade it seems that Wal-Mart (in one way or another) has been associated with everything that is wrong in society. It is not unlikely that part of my hatred is simply a manifestation of that popular belief.

            The Wal-Mart in North Adams is so basic that it is gloomy. Everything (the walls, the floors, and the shelves) are whitewashed to make their products stand out to the wandering eye of the customer. Everything in the store is designed to cater to the impulses of the wanderer. The lights in the store are bright enough (so that they give me a blinding headache) so that customers can easily lose track of time. There is no music, outside of the entertainment section, and there are really no audible signs of life beyond the constant beeping of the checkout counters. The inside of the Wal-Mart bears no resemblance the perfect shopping environment that Jon Goss recommends to his readers. Goss’s examples of successful shopping centers were designed to “restore a sense of lost commitment and belonging…counteract the phenomenon of alienation, isolation, and loneliness… (Magic of the Mall, p. 23). Instead Wal-Mart shoppers are left to expel their feelings of isolation and boredom through the purchase of unnecessary goods at rock bottom prices.

            Wal-Mart’s only real branding image is the motto “We Sell for Less” and their stores stick rigidly to that standard. There are really no other brands openly advertised in the store (even though Wal-Mart produces nothing under their own brand name). In terms of signage, the only advertisements designed to catch the eyes of the consumer are large displays at the end of every isle advertising the price of a particular item. Each advertisement is titled with one of three slogans, “‘Unbeatable Prices,’  ‘Roll Back,’ and ‘Clearance.’” None of the advertisements attempt to lie to me about the quality of the products or even deceive me into connecting their products with some positive experience. The only message is that: when you go to Wal-Mart you are saving money while in the act of spending it. It is the design of the store that makes the customers spend the money that they saved (and more) before leaving.

            In Gross’s article he quotes a leader in marketing who points out that the amount of consumer spending is directly correlated to the amount of time spent in shopping spaces. The goal of a well designed shopping center is to keep the shoppers in the store for the maximum length of time. It is the design scheme that I believe to be one of the central pillars of Wal-Mart’s success. Designed as a one stop shopping location, where customers can get everything from cereal to baby clothing to gun supplies and everything in between, Wal-Mart   attracts customers who come with the mindset that they are going to shop a wide range of products. They believe that by going to Wal-Mart they will save both money and time. In my experience of shopping at Wal-Mart I have spent more money and time than I had ever intended.

At the entrance of Wal-Mart there is a wide path that goes strait and right (In class we talked about how over 80% of people who walk in a store walk immediately to the right) and another path that goes directly left, in front of the checkout lines. These two large paths connect to make a circle that brings the customer through every section of the store. The store is designed so that customers walk through on a path that maximizes both the time spent in the store and the variety of products that he or she comes in contact with. It is very difficult to walk into a Wal-Mart and quickly find a specific item. While sections are marked by signs hanging from the ceiling, the customer is only able to see the sign of the section directly in front of them. Wal-Mart provides no maps for customers and is severely understaffed so there is nobody to help give directions. Customers are left to wander the store with the hope that by some stroke of luck will come across the items which they came to buy. So, to make use of their time wandering, Wal-Mart provides them with an extra large shopping cart to fill with goods that they originally had no idea intention of buying. It is no wonder that American garages no longer have any space available to park cars.

After completing the prescribed path around the Wal-Mart I took a seat on the only bench that I could find in the store. I tried a hard to imagine Wal-Mart as a kind of consumer civic center, but I realized that only thing that it brought to the community was cheap place to consume. It had no place for people to congregate, no entertainment (outside of shopping), and it did not seem to support anything in the community. I watched the people that passed me; mostly couples because it was 8 pm on a Thursday night, who just seemed to wander past, without talking, pushing carts filled to the brim with goods. I truly felt as though I was trapped in a live picture of the “sameness” which Adorno and Horkheimer had warned had infected the developed world. These people consumed in mass quantities as though they had a choice (a choice that would set them apart from their peers), but in reality they all ended up being the same. Maybe it is when you leave Wal-Mart, or any other place of mass consumption, that you are truly able to be an individual again. 

Shoplifting from Whitman's

I recently read a humorous, but honest, email sent out over the WUFO list serve. In the email, the writer described getting caught walking out of Whitman’s dinning with a large tray food without paying for it with his meal card. He reluctantly gave the woman his card and went to eat his meal. Later, he wrote to the entire Frisbee team, and some that are not on the Frisbee team (myself), that it was the first time that he had had to pay for a meal at Paresky since April of his freshman year. He got caught, then lied about paying, and was then dragged back into Whitman’s to actually pay for his meal. He later proclaimed that the incident was one of the most traumatizing experiences he has had while at Williams. His reasons for not paying for his meal was 1) that he was on the 20 meal plan and thus entitled to the meal, 2) Whitman’s was so easy to steal from that it was his duty to prove its faulty design, and 3) it was much more fun to steal from Whitman’s than have your card swiped.

            It is somewhat eerie how much the WUFO player’s justification mirrors that of the lady shoplifters of the 19^th century department store. At this point history, for the first time, stores that had once been owned by well-known merchants had been replaced by faceless department stores. The new stores seemed to have limitless money and goods that made shoplifting for these women an experience that was not “morally straining.” These women were not stealing from someone that they knew, but a large company, an idea. The WUFO player, like many of these 19^th century women, did not believe what they were doing was wrong. The women where stretching the amount of money that they had to spend by stealing some of the items that they believed they “needed.” The WUFO player was stealing to prove a fault in the system, or in Lehman’s terms: have snack bar points for later. But, while both felt a lesser tug of morality because of the faceless nature of the entity from which they were stealing, I would also argue that they each also felt some level of ownership to the places from which they were stealing.

            The department stores of the 19^th century were becoming more than simply a place to buy household necessities; they were becoming civic centers for middle class women. Department stores where one of the few places which women, at the time, would have the opportunity to get out of the house and socialize. It is likely that many of the “shoplifting ladies” had spent a good deal of time in the stores in which they were stealing from. These women might have felt a level of ownership over the department stores just as a group of territorial surfers have over a particular beach. I have been at Williams for two and a half years and while I physically own nothing at Williams, even my dorm room is on loan, I feel as though I own a part of Williams. It is much easier to take what you want from a place that you believe is your own.

            I am certain that the WUFO player felt as though he also had some ownership of Williams. He had bought into the full 20-meal plan and so he believed he had the right to take any food that he wanted from Whitman’s. It did not matter that the meal plan’s prices were calibrated on the fact that every student would miss a certain number of meals every semester. He felt that he had paid his dues into the system so the system owed him whatever he wanted. The ladies who shoplifted in the 19^th century often had charge accounts at department stores and spent a great deal of money there. They believed that they owned a part of the store so that the extra goods that they stole were owed to them by the store. And, if they were truly regular customers, the department store clerks would let the ladies get away with their crimes.

            A few days before I received the WUFO email I was eating lunch with one of my friends. Midway through our meal a dinning services woman politely came up to my friend and informed him that he had forgotten to swipe his card. She left with his card and promptly returned. There was no confrontation and no embarrassment. My friend had purposefully not paid for his meal (hoping to cash in at snack bar later) and there was not downside to getting caught. The author of “Shoplifting Ladies” pointed this out as one of the main motivators for the women’s petty thievery. The department store clerks stopped most of the women for “forgetting” to pay for stolen items. In the worst cases women gave fake names to police and had no charges filed against them. The risk of punishment is so low that almost any kind of thievery can be justified. For most of these women, it is the risk that drove them to shoplifting.

            I have a hard time imagining a life as uneventful as the “Shoplifting ladies” of the 19^th century. They spent almost all day, every day, at home. Their only escape from the domestic sphere was to do the household shopping. They were expected to be proper at all times. I think that shoplifting for certain women, at that time in history, was their rebellion. Even if they were the only ones who knew it, they had done something that was outside of the standards that society had mapped for them. It might have been exciting and even fun. That was the WUFO player’s last explanation for taking food from Whitman’s; it was “much more fun than paying.” I can’t wrap my head around the idea that stealing from Whitman’s could be fun. But, everyone has his or her own definition of fun. 

The Consumption of a Superstar

Kanye West. There are few Americans who do not know the name. Maybe my dad does not listen to the New York rapper often, but I have a strong feeling that if I mentioned West’s name my dad’s face would show some sign of recognition. Aside from his rapping ability, West’s name sparks images of superstardom, flashy jewelry, private planes, and fine alcohol. Come to think of it, I cannot think of any rapper who has made it to the level of West’s popularity and does not have their name associated with a similar lifestyle. Popular rappers, like West, feature their extravagant lifestyles in their music and then let the media take pictures and videos of their daily lives in order to reach the widest possible audience.

The interaction between conscience and buying habits is a constantly recurring theme in West’s music. The song that stands out most to me is his song “All Falls Down.” At the beginning of the song, West blames his low self-esteem for his never quenched thirst for expensive clothing brands and fancy jewelry. I find humor in this because West is often depicted as having a level of confidence that would make Napoleon look like a middle schooler who just hit puberty. If his confidence is actually all show, Juliet Schor would agree that West’s constant desire for more is likely tied to his focus toward gaining “others’ esteem.” He wants anything that is rare and expensive so he can show it off to his friends, and the public, and have them awe at what he has collected. It is this desire to awe that allows MTV “Cribs” to have a limitless amount of celebrities willing to show off their mansions to a cable audience.

            After the first chorus of “All Falls Down”, West seems as though he is going follow Schor’s point, but ends up coming up with alternative reasoning for his extravagant expenditures. He explains that he is unable to pronounce many of the brands which he consumes, but:

                        “ Then I spent 400 bucks on this,

                        just to be like n**** you ain’t up on this.”

West’s highlights that his spending habits do not simply come from his low self-esteem, but also from his desire to be on the cusp of what is popular. For West, staying on the cusp of what is popular might not just be a desire, but also a business decision. In order to stay at his current star status he must exemplify popularity in all realms.

            Michael Schudson, in his article “Delectable Materialism,” briefly summarizes a wide range of perspectives on human wants versus human needs. Early on Schudson summarizes Karl Marx and Adam Smith and concludes that both philosophers recognized that “human needs are social and relative.” Thus, what is a luxury for some can be a necessity for others depending on their culture and social position. Smith gives the example that while a linen shirt is not necessary for survival, a “credible day-laborer” would be embarrassed to be seen in public without one. So, to Smith, a linen shirt is a necessity that social sphere.

            Now, I want to stretch this definition of necessity to a wealthy banker living in a fancy suburb outside of New York City. While this banker could drive an old Kia, he most likely would be ashamed while his peers are driving fancy imports. Thus, it would seem by Smith’s definition that an $80,000 dollar car could be deemed a necessity for such a banker.  On the same line a powerful businessman could justify the purchase of a private plane to keep up with the pace of his competitors who also fly charters.

            It is an easy, and common, argument that Kanye West’s level of consumption is “over the top” and wasteful. But, America’s capitalist economy has made it possible for West to reach his level of wealth without negatively effecting others wealth on his way up. By consuming more, using a strict interpretation of the trickledown effect, it is possible that West is creating work for those on the lower end of society. So is it not more reasonable for West to own 500 pairs of shoes than for a middle class house wife to buy a $600 dollar Louis Vuitton handbag? The woman is trying to give the impression that she is in a class that is way beyond her means. Because so few people in the woman’s realm of society own such a handbag, the woman could not reasonably be ashamed to be seen without such an item.

            West, on the other hand, falls in a class of society where it is not uncommon to own a room full of shoes. Many of the musical artists and actors whom he associates with put their shoe collections in their music or show them on T.V. So to simply fit in West has to consume at a level that is unimaginable to almost anyone. But, I would take it a step farther and say that West could make owning 501 pairs of shoes out to be a necessity even when everyone around him only has 500. Part of the reason that Kanye is so famous is that he is always working to be on the cusp of popular consumption.

When Kanye released the single “Stronger” last year, he brought Shutter Shades from obscurity to popularity. Shutter shades have no practical use and serve purely aesthetic purposes. Now, whenever someone sees a pair of Shutters their mind automatically goes to Kanye West. Because there is so much talent in the entertainment business today, it is the little things that divide the no-names from the superstars. So, in hopes of creating a new wave of popularity, West needs to stay on the outer edge of consumption. To remain at the top of the music industry (make billboard top 100, have his music get played on radio / TV, and sell out concerts) West is creating the outer limits of what is a necessity.