Delectable Materialism
Claim
Contrary to many contemporary social critics, advertising is not the cause of materialism; in fact, America was materialist long before advertising had much importance
Key Points
1.Summarizes and rebuts David Potter's seminal work People of Plenty on the power of advertising to influence consumer spending in America
2. Argues that Potter was wrong to argue that advertising is an instrument of social control, as is the church and schools. School is a much greater instrument of control - takes up more time, can punish or reward and create social reference groups. Children have greater choice in paying attention to advertisements - no punishments or rewards
3. Argues that consumer culture is sustained socially not by advertising, but by the consumers' pleasure in the goods themselves.
4. Argues that people do not have to learn to desire more goods through advertising; the longing for more has deep roots in American culture
5. Critics of advertising do not recognize its aesthetic or informative appeal
6. True, advertising does not have a larger moral or social purpose
7. On the positive side, advertising, along with elections, are the most important institutions that promote the American ideology of choice.
8. Even those eastern cultures previously regarded as less consumer oriented than ours now want to partake in the consumer affluence of the west
9. We need to stop criticizing consumer culture so harshly; we need to recognize that it is acceptable to desire material goods and reconstruct a new moral and political view of consumption that we all can live with
Argumentative Strategy
- Position and proposal argument in response to the common cultural criticism of advertising. Deductive organization - makes his position clear from the beginning
- Summarizes the claim to which he is responding (represented by Potter)
- Develops his argument with supporting evidence
- Restates his argument and proposes a new response to advertising and materialism in his concluding paragraphs
Assumptions
He challenges what he regards as common assumptions about the power of advertising and the negative view of consumerism expressed by contemporary social critics
He assumes that consumerism is a unique aspect of American culture without really explaining why it is representative of the culture.
He makes several other assumptions about the extensive power of church and school to control choice and the limited power of advertising to control choice
Evidence
- Mostly challenges Potter's argument
- Uses personal experience - the social control exerted over his five year old and sweeping generalizations - other cultures want to be like us
- Seems to rely on logic, but offers no other statistical research to support his claims
- Seems to rely on shared assumptions with the reader about what makes sense - don't we want to own something not because of advertising, but because we enjoy it or feel better because we own it
- He challenges what he regards as a morally judgemental view of consumer culture that has its roots in Marxism and puritanism
In general his evidence is not convincing, because he begs the question - how do you know that your interpretation of other people's behavior is correct
Opposing Arguments
- He spends most of his time rebutting Potter's opposing argument
- He concedes that advertising is not necessarily healthy or moral
Logical Fallacies
- Poisoning the well - he tries to minimize criticism of advertising or consumer culture by labeling it Marxist or puritan
- Begging the question - how does he know that advertising has to little influence on consumer choice - in fact most current research proves that it has a great deal of influence over consumer choice
- False analogy - comparison between elections and advertising as "the most important institutions that promote the American ideology of choice"
Overall Evaluation
Interesting argument that is less convincing in the first half than in the second.
His evidence to support the limited influence of advertising is weak.
His argument that we must stop condemning advertising and consumer culture outright has some merit, since he is persuasive that most people around the world want to enjoy and want to own more "stuff"
His proposal is persuasive that rather than condemning consumerism outright, it would be more productive to find new moral and political ground on which to evaluate and guide what appears to be a universal human drive to consume.