Is there some kind of evolutionary effect at play here? I ask this since the participants in this shopping frenzy are females; not exclusively no doubt, but predominantly. Could that be the evolutionary desire – or necessity, more like – to undertake ‘gathering’, as in “hunting and gathering”? Those who were able to do so successfully were more likely to survive, along with their kin. If a superabundance of foodstuffs became available, perhaps on a seasonal basis, the impetus to gather would become an imperative, perhaps inducing a hormonal reaction.
Is what the author, and Zola, describe the continuation of this hormonally-driven imperative? The superabundance of the superstore driving an ancient need to fulfil a duty to one’s family, to one’s tribe; to oneself? The feelings described would certainly fit this narrative.
Interesting thought. I would imagine much female expenditure is on cosmetics, jewellery, clothes, hairdo’s – all things designed to increase attractiveness to a high status mate
Same concept of a hormonally driven imperative but with a slightly different root?
Interesting idea, but would perhaps be more likely to drive women to the supermarket rather than the shopping mall. I think Martin is closer to the mark, but underestimates female status seeking. It is not limited to simply attracting a high status mate. It is also to establish their status with other women.
If we look at female consumption, it is largely based around improving appearance, holding back signs of ageing, emphasising sexual characteristics and displaying status. As women age, the emphasis changes. A young woman will happily wear a cheap frock if it is sexy and displays her body. An older woman will wear a more expensive frock which conveys status and does a reasonable job of hiding that she is physically not what she once was.
wtf. Men and women both gathered. We all experience an acquisitiveness which has little if anything to do with hormones or seasons. We all generally experience a thrill at purchasing or obtaining something which can be explained by evolutionary impulses. Your ex post hormonal explanation is bizarre. https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20150318-tame-your-inner-impulse-buyer
It’s obvious isn’t it? Those who had an innate incentive to gather and pick out good things survived. There is no reason to derive pleasure in shopping other than the fact that it all the people who weren’t bothered about it died. The same phenomena are at play when we game, gamble and use social media (or comment sections).
Women’s buying in the fashion and cosmetics industry is insane. They have made billionaires and multi-millionaires of so many. As a woman, I’m saddened and disgusted to see that women will spend so much money on an ugly-looking purse simply because it’s made by a designer. They have an obsessive need to impress others and designers capitalize on and exploit that need. I have given this much thought because not all women allow themselves to be victimized in this way. So what makes the difference? Personality type.
Executive function? Intelligence? Thoughtfulness? Narcissism? As you say, you’ve given it much thought – but most people don’t, they are carried along by the current. That in itself sets you apart a bit.
I don’t want to sound too moralistic, we all like nice things, and I realise I’m close to stereotyping certain women – but the obsession with designer goods etc does tend to go with other characteristics. Let’s just say, I doubt they are reading Martin Heidegger in their spare time.
Unless it’s shopping for something the man is interested in and wishes to buy – such as a car – or for those types, a gun. Then it can take hours. And hours. And hours. And David, fyi, there are really many many women who read Heidegger and the like. Even god help us, French philosophers, who also indulge in fashion. Truly.
J Bryant
4 months ago
That was an interesting and engaging essay, imo.
The question that really caught my eye was:
“The difficulty that he implicitly raises for any alternative to capitalism is … instead a motivational difficulty: assuming it does avoid poverty for all, what will move and inspire and incite those people?”
We live in an age that still pays lip service to capitalism, but its predominant goal seems to be deindustrialization, reducing living standards, pushing people to rely increasingly on the State for their living. So without the cut and thrust of capitalism, what will motivate future young people? The answer increasingly appears to be devotion to strange, invented cults, notably wokeism, and perhaps a return to tribalism and real conflict, not just the conflict of the marketplace. Political and economic theories might fall in and out of fashion, but human nature doesn’t change.
Here’s another set of metaphors and flights of fancy surrounding the experience of shopping. Left to my own devices, I will treat it as a military exercise. Do I have to commit to the battle, or can it be put off and the problem solved by retreat or diplomacy? If not, establish clear objectives. What is needed, and how are they to be obtained with minimum damage to my own forces? Plan (bags, credit card, parking, travel times) and then a fast and surgical execution. Get in, buy the stuff, and get out before they know what’s hit them, taking as few casualties as possible.
What Zola (and Tolstoy) also noted was the extent to which consumerism is a female driven phenomena. Initially rich women, later almost all.
Should global warming really lay waste to the planet, and render life here impossible, I suggest that humanity’s final act should be the creation of a giant handbag in marble to act as a warning to any future alien visitors.
Though women seem to have caught the car bug too. Perhaps cars are the new handbag 🙂
Tyler Durden
4 months ago
An excellent piece about a wonderful writer who is not read enough today. I wonder if some of that is owing to his famous defence of the 19th French military figure Alfred Dreyfus who’s mistreatment exposed entrenched French anti-Semitism?
Too much truth is my hunch. We prefer a prettier, less realistic view of the past.
David Morley
4 months ago
When a hobby requires expensive gear, this often makes it secretly more appealing — a reason to shop! — not less
Which brings us right back to Veblen et al and a critique that the author has subtly edged us away from: that the “gear” must be expensive, that it must convey status, and that it must be unaffordable to the many. Indeed people are drawn to activities which are expensive, and eschew those that are cheap, precisely because of their exclusivity and the status they convey.
Men indulge in status shopping. But it tends to be “gear” not decoration. Watches, high-end cycling gear, “technical” sports apparel. Tools I feel are less demonstrative, instead creating the quiet satisfaction of owning the “best”. Japanese tenon saws, anything by Festool, that sort of thing.
To be honest we all do it to a degree. Though few men actually enjoy the act of shopping in the way women do.
laurence scaduto
4 months ago
A very good essay. It set me mind off on a tangent.
Being a bit of a hoarder, I once had a stoop sale, a yard sale for someone without a yard. I set up early and then mostly just sat and watched and chatted all day. I was impressed and very pleased at the simple joy and the fun that everyone was having. I never really thought of the social aspects of this “incitement” to shop.
Unfortunately, the bigger, more corporate and more online the experience gets the less social pleasure it provides. But that hasn’t reduced the urge to aquire things one bit.
By the way, I made a bundle!
Christopher Barclay
4 months ago
What a surprise! The main purpose of the BBC’s drama department is to make the clothes people wore 200 or more years ago. There is also the question as to the likeness that the BBC in the world of media has to the department store that destroys its smaller competitors. No wonder the BBC sugar-coated the tale.
Cynthia W.
4 months ago
“the routine rearrangement of the store to confuse customers into spending more time within its walls”
They just did this at my local Walmart. My son works there, and he said the stock manager had a breakdown and quit.
Is there some kind of evolutionary effect at play here? I ask this since the participants in this shopping frenzy are females; not exclusively no doubt, but predominantly. Could that be the evolutionary desire – or necessity, more like – to undertake ‘gathering’, as in “hunting and gathering”? Those who were able to do so successfully were more likely to survive, along with their kin. If a superabundance of foodstuffs became available, perhaps on a seasonal basis, the impetus to gather would become an imperative, perhaps inducing a hormonal reaction.
Is what the author, and Zola, describe the continuation of this hormonally-driven imperative? The superabundance of the superstore driving an ancient need to fulfil a duty to one’s family, to one’s tribe; to oneself? The feelings described would certainly fit this narrative.
Interesting observation and highly likely I would have thought.
Interesting thought. I would imagine much female expenditure is on cosmetics, jewellery, clothes, hairdo’s – all things designed to increase attractiveness to a high status mate
Same concept of a hormonally driven imperative but with a slightly different root?
And status to other women.
Yes, good point.
Interesting idea, but would perhaps be more likely to drive women to the supermarket rather than the shopping mall. I think Martin is closer to the mark, but underestimates female status seeking. It is not limited to simply attracting a high status mate. It is also to establish their status with other women.
If we look at female consumption, it is largely based around improving appearance, holding back signs of ageing, emphasising sexual characteristics and displaying status. As women age, the emphasis changes. A young woman will happily wear a cheap frock if it is sexy and displays her body. An older woman will wear a more expensive frock which conveys status and does a reasonable job of hiding that she is physically not what she once was.
wtf. Men and women both gathered. We all experience an acquisitiveness which has little if anything to do with hormones or seasons. We all generally experience a thrill at purchasing or obtaining something which can be explained by evolutionary impulses. Your ex post hormonal explanation is bizarre.
https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20150318-tame-your-inner-impulse-buyer
It’s obvious isn’t it? Those who had an innate incentive to gather and pick out good things survived. There is no reason to derive pleasure in shopping other than the fact that it all the people who weren’t bothered about it died. The same phenomena are at play when we game, gamble and use social media (or comment sections).
I wouldn’t take much, if any, credence from a BBC article, although it does explain your need to express yourself with “wtf”.
The hoarding phenomenon cuts across gender lines equally. That’s a result of OCD and I think all shopping has an element of that.
Women’s buying in the fashion and cosmetics industry is insane. They have made billionaires and multi-millionaires of so many. As a woman, I’m saddened and disgusted to see that women will spend so much money on an ugly-looking purse simply because it’s made by a designer. They have an obsessive need to impress others and designers capitalize on and exploit that need. I have given this much thought because not all women allow themselves to be victimized in this way. So what makes the difference? Personality type.
Executive function? Intelligence? Thoughtfulness? Narcissism? As you say, you’ve given it much thought – but most people don’t, they are carried along by the current. That in itself sets you apart a bit.
I don’t want to sound too moralistic, we all like nice things, and I realise I’m close to stereotyping certain women – but the obsession with designer goods etc does tend to go with other characteristics. Let’s just say, I doubt they are reading Martin Heidegger in their spare time.
Unless it’s shopping for something the man is interested in and wishes to buy – such as a car – or for those types, a gun. Then it can take hours. And hours. And hours. And David, fyi, there are really many many women who read Heidegger and the like. Even god help us, French philosophers, who also indulge in fashion. Truly.
That was an interesting and engaging essay, imo.
The question that really caught my eye was:
“The difficulty that he implicitly raises for any alternative to capitalism is … instead a motivational difficulty: assuming it does avoid poverty for all, what will move and inspire and incite those people?”
We live in an age that still pays lip service to capitalism, but its predominant goal seems to be deindustrialization, reducing living standards, pushing people to rely increasingly on the State for their living. So without the cut and thrust of capitalism, what will motivate future young people? The answer increasingly appears to be devotion to strange, invented cults, notably wokeism, and perhaps a return to tribalism and real conflict, not just the conflict of the marketplace. Political and economic theories might fall in and out of fashion, but human nature doesn’t change.
So without the cut and thrust of capitalism, what will motivate future young people?
And the answer is: shopping.
Exactly. Human nature doesn’t change.
Here’s another set of metaphors and flights of fancy surrounding the experience of shopping. Left to my own devices, I will treat it as a military exercise. Do I have to commit to the battle, or can it be put off and the problem solved by retreat or diplomacy? If not, establish clear objectives. What is needed, and how are they to be obtained with minimum damage to my own forces? Plan (bags, credit card, parking, travel times) and then a fast and surgical execution. Get in, buy the stuff, and get out before they know what’s hit them, taking as few casualties as possible.
Funny, thanks for the chuckle.
What Zola (and Tolstoy) also noted was the extent to which consumerism is a female driven phenomena. Initially rich women, later almost all.
Should global warming really lay waste to the planet, and render life here impossible, I suggest that humanity’s final act should be the creation of a giant handbag in marble to act as a warning to any future alien visitors.
No need. There will be plenty of men’s cars still lying around.
A good retort.
Though women seem to have caught the car bug too. Perhaps cars are the new handbag 🙂
An excellent piece about a wonderful writer who is not read enough today. I wonder if some of that is owing to his famous defence of the 19th French military figure Alfred Dreyfus who’s mistreatment exposed entrenched French anti-Semitism?
I doubt most people even know of that.
Too much truth is my hunch. We prefer a prettier, less realistic view of the past.
Which brings us right back to Veblen et al and a critique that the author has subtly edged us away from: that the “gear” must be expensive, that it must convey status, and that it must be unaffordable to the many. Indeed people are drawn to activities which are expensive, and eschew those that are cheap, precisely because of their exclusivity and the status they convey.
Men indulge in status shopping. But it tends to be “gear” not decoration. Watches, high-end cycling gear, “technical” sports apparel. Tools I feel are less demonstrative, instead creating the quiet satisfaction of owning the “best”. Japanese tenon saws, anything by Festool, that sort of thing.
To be honest we all do it to a degree. Though few men actually enjoy the act of shopping in the way women do.
A very good essay. It set me mind off on a tangent.
Being a bit of a hoarder, I once had a stoop sale, a yard sale for someone without a yard. I set up early and then mostly just sat and watched and chatted all day. I was impressed and very pleased at the simple joy and the fun that everyone was having. I never really thought of the social aspects of this “incitement” to shop.
Unfortunately, the bigger, more corporate and more online the experience gets the less social pleasure it provides. But that hasn’t reduced the urge to aquire things one bit.
By the way, I made a bundle!
What a surprise! The main purpose of the BBC’s drama department is to make the clothes people wore 200 or more years ago. There is also the question as to the likeness that the BBC in the world of media has to the department store that destroys its smaller competitors. No wonder the BBC sugar-coated the tale.
“the routine rearrangement of the store to confuse customers into spending more time within its walls”
They just did this at my local Walmart. My son works there, and he said the stock manager had a breakdown and quit.