To Consume or not to Consume? Ideological Predispositions toward Passive Consumption in Modern American Society Imagine a water bottle.

Ask yourself: What does it look like? Is it thick or thin? What does the packaging say? While easy to shrug off these characteristics as useless or even trivial, an archaeologist would likely disagree. The entire discipline of archaeology, and numerous other humanities, is centered on the premise that a societys material possessions provide invaluable insight into a particular groups lifestyle, habits and ritual activities. With this in mind, reexamine your Platonic water b ottle. Has your opinion changed? Perhaps the most important characteristics of a water bottle are the societal attitudes embedded within. A water bottle performs many functions, but primarily serves to carry purportedly pristine drinking water to the user, who promptly consumes it. After its usage, a water bottle is typically forgotten, discarded, thrown away, all polite euphemisms for becoming trash. This is perhaps the most troublesome characteristic of this prepackaged product. The consumption of just one water bottle demands the conclusion that this plastic receptacle will ultimately end up where it is supposed to end up. Whether this ends up in a landfill, recycling plant or the Pacific Ocean, once the bottle has been consumed, it is considered no longer the responsibility of the consumer. It has become the responsibility of everyone else. The acceptance of this mindset is culturally engrained within modern Western society, representing a troubling ideological predisposition that an object, once used, has no value whatsoever. This perspective is relatively new in the history of humankind. What then, creates such an attitude? The idea that a material good has exhausted any purpose is created through the cultural acceptance of passive consumption. The disposition of passive consumption is embedded within the culture of the United States, where the average American generates roughly 4.6 pounds of waste per day (Learner.org, Garbage: Solid Waste). With this statistic in mind, I intend to examine the ideological foundation of consumption using the work of French Marxist philosopher Louis Althusser. Through an incorporation of his theoretical work on ideology, I will ultimately reach the conclusion that passive consumption is made possible through ideological foundations embedded deep within society. Through these frameworks, both consumer and distributor actively participate in the cycle of consumption, further prolonging its existence through acceptance of the status quo. In order to discuss the cyclical nature of passive consumption, it is essential to understand key terms. Merriam Webster defines consumption as the utilization of economic goods in the satisfaction of wants or in the process of production resu lting chiefly in their destruction, deterioration o r transformation. (Merriam Webster) Alternatively, passive is defined as acted upon by an external agency, as well as receptive to outside impressions or influences (Merriam Webster). Together, both definitions provide a holistic understanding of passive consumption, or the alteration and ultimate elimination of material goods due to an influence of outside factors.

With these definitions in mind, we now ask: how is passive consumption made possible? What, after all, is so passive about it? And what makes it different from normal consumption? Which external forces are at bay, influencing individual bodies to perform actions that they might otherwise not perform? What overarching ideological and performative structures are at play in rationalizing consumption and where, ultimately, do they originate? A logical starting point, per se, might be the invention of the term garbage. But, wait: Isnt garbage as ancient as the human species? It is, technically speaking, and I dont intend to claim that the concept of waste is complete falsehood. I will, however, argue that the definition of garbage we hold today is not synonymous with the historical understanding of the term. As Heather Rogers writes in Gone Tomorrow: the Hidden Life of Garbage, garbage as we know it is a relatively new invention predicated on the monumental technological and social changes wrought by industrializat ion (31). Prior to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the removal of waste by means of mass-scale transportation was not possible. When people used material goods, they understood that it was their prerogative to find use for the good after its life -span; in this scenario, historically, repurposing took precedent to outright disposal. The constant reuse of items was necessary, albeit burdensome, because disposal was not economically (or logistically) feasible. An item couldnt simply be trashed if the trash truck didnt come every week. Similarly, a purchase wasnt merely a purchaseit was an investment. Such attitudes were depicted in the domestic chore of finding new uses for previously consumed goods, as was the case pre -industry and thus, pre-consumerism. Examples include the early 20th century textile mill village practice of using discarded soda bottle caps as checkerboard pieces or the repurposing of waste boxes as tables or chairs (Levine Museum of the New South). This attitude began to change during the industrial revo lution, which presented a new paradigm shift to the status quo of garbage. As Western societies became more technologically advanced, they began to generate more and more waste, surpassing the amount previously manageable within the household. At this juncture, waste underwent a conceptual reworking. The changes in the opening years of twentieth-century sanitation and garbage handling helped constitute an infrastructure crucial for mass consumption and discarding (Rogers 77). The emerging waste management infrastructure, as well as associated ideological principles, together fostered the idea that passive consumption is tolerable, and even admirable. Of course, this mentality is never publicly discussed. The idea that waste could be an ideal seems contradictory to most people and, consequently, is often left unexamined; however, recall the water bottle from a few pages ago. Was the packaging light or flimsy? Did sustainable or environmentally conscious appear anywhere on the label? If any of these examples are true, you might find it easier to understand the subtle messages conveyed through a water bottles packaging. Embedded within the material structure of the bottle is inscribed the mentality that, because the good is constructed in an eco-friendly method (and is, after all, recyclable), it is acceptable to unquestioningly consu me the product. Because the good is sustainable, it must be okay, even desirable, to consume. Similar messages encouraging

consumptive behavior are readily broadcast throughout Western society, yet rarely are the systems responsible for such messages taken into account for their behavior. A society that ignores systematic bias is fatally flawed. To deny that the primary determiners of cultural influence namely the media, government and other private institutionspossess immense power is a drastic disservice. Through advertising campaigns that encourage consumptive behaviors, consumption is easily made the status quo. Consider the average city-dwelling individual. Confronted with approximately 5,000 advertisements per day, the average person is unable to develop their own unbiased view of the world (Story). In other words, a person awake sixteen hours a day should expect to see 312.5 advertisements per hour, or 5.2 per minute during their waking hours. Given such high exposure, it is no surprise that the average American generates 4.6 pounds of garbage per day. It is difficult to fathom the degree that waste has changed (and exponentially increased) within the past century. Even after presentation of the historical evidence presented above, the degree of this monumental shift is simply unfathomable. To better understand the development of this mentality, I will apply Louis Althussers philosophical ideas, as expressed in his famous work, Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses. Through this application, the highly obscure waste complex will be examined through a more introspective lens. Althusser defines two different types of state institutions, which he classifies as the ideological and repressive apparatus, respectively. The repressive apparatus functions through manifestations of authoritative (state) power the police, military and punitive systems, to name a few. Active within the larger social sphere, the repressive apparatus is highly publicized, unlike the ideological apparatus, a more privatized entity. This does not mean that the two are mutually exclusive. In fact, the Ideological State Apparatuses function massively and predominately by ideology, but they also function secondarily by repression (Althusser 145). Ideological apparatuses elicit change through the subtle reshaping of individual attitudes and predispositions; in the process, they actively repress alternative points of view. Repression occurs as ideological apparatuses coerce individuals to deny themselves the right to free expression. In this system, individual opinions are replaced with the generalized products of rhetorical machines. Again, ideological changes arent obvious; they are intentionally disguised. Similarly, what is considered the culturally dominant point of view (the majority perspective), could actually be the product of ideological apparatuses. Actively subjugating individual bodies, these functions shape mass opinion highly effectively, often without the subjected individuals knowledge. Caught in this quadruple system of interpellation as subjects, of subjection to the Subject, of universal recognition and of absolute guarantee, the subjects work, they work by themselves in the vast majority of cases, with the exception of the bad subjects who on occasion provoke the intervention of one of the detachments of the (repressive) State apparatus. But the vast majority of (good) subjects work all right all by themselves, i.e. by ideology (whose concrete forms are realized in the Ideological State Apparatuses.) (Althusser 181)

Through the subjugation of individuals, Ideological State Apparatuses confine bodies to a state of self-sustaining limitation. Institutional discourses coerce the individual mind into acceptance of the world as is its processes, industries, systems and economic practices remain unquestioned. Through ideological discourses, the present world is considered to be in ideal working order. Through encouragement in the preservation of the status quo, the masses accept the state of things as given, unaware of their ability to object or question the dominant cultural discourses that shape such acceptance. On the contrary, those that do object are quickly put down by authority figures through usage of the repressive apparatus, which deliberately criminalizes individual (instead of institutional) transgressions. With this information, what is the average individual to do? Keep consuming? Fight the system or allow it to continue? While most Americans lie somewhere in the middlecaught between low-consumption and mass-consumption, some people have chosen an extreme point of view in order to make a profound statement. One such example is Colin Beavan, author of No Impact Man: the Adventures of a Guilty Liberal Who Attempts to Save the Planet and the Discoveries He Makes About Himself and Our Way of Life in the Process. Beavan began his book with a radical assertion: he swore off the average American life for an entire year. He bought only food grown within 250 miles of his home; he abandoned all carbon-producing forms of transportation, including public transit; he even cut off the electricity to his house. In his book, Beavan discusses the effects the decision to make no-impact had on his family, as well as on others perceptions of him. While many encouraged his behavior, surprisingly, many would outright reject it. It wasnt uncommon for Beavans experiment to be brushed aside as a hopeless, idealistic attempt by a man out of touch with the world. Even more people supported his ideas, but almost universally d eclared that they, themselves, couldnt follow his lead; they, themselves, couldnt imagine a world different from the status quo. Most surprisingly, though, were those criticisms that even Beaven didnt expect. In his book, Beaven provides examples, including the following assertion from one of his close friends. Of course the corporate media love you. Youre out there telling us all that individually we should use less electricity and distracting everyone from the fact that industry is killing us. Youre out there worrying us about littering while they get away with killing the world. (Beavan 181) At first taken aback, Beavan later admi ts that this critique makes sense. This comment is just another indictment of modern American societys focus on the act ions of individuals in lieu of more organized, systematic polluters. In these situations, powerful ideological machines are able to define waste not as the collective responsibility of those involved, but as an individual responsibility. The burden of a go ods disposal has been divorced from the producer(s); now, responsibility lies with the consumer in order to draw attention away from the producers sudden disappearance. After all, it is much easier to blame one person in comparison to an elusive, bureaucratic conglomerate. The nuanced message that ones waste is a solo responsibility (and ones responsibility alone) is reflective of larger societ al attitudes that surround the waste and recycling industries. The takeaway message to most consumers ultimatel y is: Regardless of

industrys actions, the rhetoric of [consumption] targets individual behaviors as the key to the garbage problem, steering pu blic debate away from regulations on production (Rogers 176). In other words, it is acceptable to lay blame upon the individual for their personal environmental sins, yet not the social mechanism that enables and encourages such behavior. This is a principle th at, if left unchecked, may prove catastrophic. The denigration of the consumer for a single instance of environmental oversight is harsh. When someone litters (or consumes too much), critics blame the individual, rarely citing the societal factors and institutions that encourage such behavior. This principle may be found on advertisements lining numerous American highways, warning drivers not to litter under the punitive threat of harsh fines. Through this repressive system, the ideological apparatus fosters the mentality that it is the individuals responsibility to address the looming garbage crisis. Again, it is considered only the individuals responsibility to account for his or her waste, whereas industry is rarely taken into account. Systematic inefficiency isnt addressed, but personal waste is. Examples of this principle may be found in many different avenues, such as within soda monopoly Coca-Colas own corporate publications. In a recent report (dated 2008/2009), Coca-Cola Bottling Company published their annual Sustainability Review magazine. Within, representatives of this beverage conglomera te outlined the companys sustainability practices, which include the following language: To us, waste prevention extends beyond simply reducing packaging material. Our focus is on eliminating all raw material, energy and water losses from the entire packaging process chainfrom the initial resources used to make a package through to the consumer and beyond (Our Sustainable Packaging Vision). While I dont intend to vilify an entire company (and have no intention of doing so), I hope to shed light on the ideological apparatuses at play in their statement. Within publications such as Coca-Colas Sustainability Review is embedded the presumption that the operative practices in practice throughout the company are sound, unquestionable, even admirable. Nowhere in the Sustainability Review did Coca-Cola mention the most glaring environmental issue at hand the companys continued usage of disposable plastic drink receptacles. Through delicate language, the Sustainability Review neglected to address the waste innate within the product; instead, this publication focused on eliminating waste in the process of production. Provided the company continues its usage of these throwaway containers, any efforts to publicize sustainable practices appear contradictory to the effort the company has taken to promote ecofriendly corporate principles. Provided the throwaway container remains symbolic of Coca-Colas business practices, any efforts the company makes to appear sustainable lose their credibility. It appears the consumer is faced with an assault of pro-Earth, anti-waste jargon, while guilty systematic institutions are able to avoid difficult conversations through the success of their ideological machines and the propagation of sustainability pledges, publications and newsletters. Through the power of ideological apparatuses, power discourses deliberately shape the public opinion away from systematic issues, instead focusing on the transgressions of the individual. Until these issues are resolved, the mentality of passive consumption will continue to cyclically repeat itself.

Works Cited Althusser, Louis. Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses (Notes towards an Investigation.) Lenin and Philosophy and Oth er Essays. Trans. Ben Brewster. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1971. 127-186. Print. Beavan, Colin. No Impact Man: the Adventures of a Guilty Liberal Who Attempts to Save the Planet and the Discoveries He Makes About Himself and Our Way of Life in the Process. New York: Picador, 2009. Print. Garbage: Solid Waste. Learner.org. Annenberg Foundation, 2012. Web. 6 November 2012. Levine Museum of the New South. Common CORE Tour Facilitation Manual. Charlotte: Levine Museum of the New South, 2012. Print. Merriam Webster. Merriam Webster, Inc., 2012. Web. 4 November 2012. Our Sustainable Packaging Vision. 2008/2009 Sustainability Review. Coca-Cola, Inc., 2009. Web. 6 Nov. 2012. Rogers, Heather. Gone Tomorrow: the Hidden Life of Garbage. New York: the New Press, 2005. Print. Story, Louise. Anywhere the Eye Can See, Its Likely to See an Ad. New York Times. The New York Times Company, 15 Jan. 2007. Web. 18 Nov. 2012.