The Cause And Effects Of Consumerism Cultural Studies Essay

The Cause And Effects Of Consumerism Cultural Studies Essay Consumerism is the term used to describe the effects of equating personal happiness with purchasing material possessions and consumption. Today we live in a consumer culture obsessed world. Consumption encompasses our everyday lives and structures our everyday agendas. The values, meanings and costs of what we consume have become an increasing important part of our social and personal experiences. The main factor enforcing our actions in this way is the news media. The news media is filled with information about consumption- not only in the form of advertising but also as news about businesses, lifestyles and economic indicators. However none of this tells us how we came about as a culture that associates freedom with the freedom of consuming anything of our choice and as a means of self-fulfillment. All cultures have found meaning in material goods. Objects resemble a social status or go further than that and have an emotional attachment with ones self. Goods are not only consumed for there material characteristics, but even more for what they symbolize- there meanings, associations and there involvement in our self image. Consumption is not simply the acquiring of products predestined meanings. Instead, it should be seen as a form of social consumer culture. While consumption is an act, consumer culture is a way of life. It is quite likely that never before in history has consumption become one of the central values of a culture. In modern society one learns merely to consume, and tasteful or appropriate consumption is only one of the numerous choices. It is this focus on consumption as a central worth that makes us a consumer culture. Consumption no longer seems to reflect our cultural values; it has itself become a cultural value. It has entered into the warp and turmoil of this fabric we call modern life. Every public space, every occasion for public gathering, every creative expression is seen as an opportunity to encourage more consumption. To understand how we have become this consumer crazy culture it is important to understand the humble beginnings of this crazy fixation. Before the industrial revolution of the eighteenth century, what people consumed was, either goods mad by family members or a person the consumer has a personal relation with. In early Europe the form consumerism took place in the weekly markets and seasonal fairs. The historical pattern in America was somewhat different. Unlike in Europe, where markets and fairs preceded the development of shops, in America shops emerged as the customary way of buying and selling in its early colonial period. It was not until the eighteenth century that markets and fairs became popular in the United States. Fashion is one of the key elements that fuel consumerism. Fashion not only includes clothing, but also any object where there is a concern for what is different, new and improved and which allows us to express our individuality. Fashion is so central to modern day consumption that it is difficult to imagine a culture in which it is not a major force. People throughout time have always been interested in the beautiful or in signs of status and in the pursuit of anything that brings them pleasure or happiness. It was during the last quarter of the sixteenth century in England that consumption first took off amongst the European nobility. This powered to two important developments. First, Queen Elizabeth the first used the dramatic spectacle of fashion as a display of government power. Second, she forced social competition among the nobility by removing them from their locality where they were clearly superior and forcing them to attend the London court where they had to compete with equals. Previously consumption had always been a family matter and what benefited the family the most. But now Elizabethan noblemen began to spend less on their families and more on themselves to further show there class and status. Josiah Wedgewood was one of the pioneers in the consumption phase. He had this new understanding of fashion and the market place. Wedgewood was a manufacturer and retailer of pottery in the eighteenth century. He was the first to recognize that if the rich and elite could be induced to adopt fashions, the other classes would follow soon. There are only certain societies where it is possible for a fashion to spread to the higher class to the lower class. Fashion has to be affordable for those in the lower class and the classes must be close enough with some fluidity between them that those in the lower class could imagine themselves owing what those in the upper class have. In England during this period the lower class was eager to possess whatever the upper class deemed fashionable. Wedgewood understood the immense financial potential of such a social situation and learnt how he could control it. His fashion tool was pottery. Wedgewood learned to closely observe what the upper class was buying in order to predict what direction the lower class consumption habits would follow through. Another factor adding to the consumer culture is the portrayal of this culture. In the United States consumption spurred as a symbol for rebellion rather than a symbol a homogeneous conformity. Schutte and Ciarlante describe Coca cola, Levis and Marlboro as symbols of individualism and freedom. Three phrases from Stuart and Elizabeth Ewens Channels of Desire (1982) which they see as indicative of the recent tendencies within consumer culture describe it best. Today there is no fashion: there are only fashions. No rules, only choices. Everyone can be anyone. This suggests there is a war against uniformity, a surplus of difference which results in a loss of meaning. The repercussion is that we are moving towards a society without fixed status groups in which the adoption of styles of life which are fixed to specific groups have been surpassed. We have been encouraged to buy in order to establish our individuality in a mass-produced culture. To express our disgust with consumption by more consumption, to purchase the latest improved traditions. Now people are encouraged to buy to convey their rejection of homogenized lifestyles. This anti-consumption attitude only fuels more consumption. Years ago, many people imagined that life would be idyllic in the 21st century. Technology would have cured most human short-comings, and there would be abundance of resources available for all. Population growth and over consumption underlie many of the invasive environmental and social concerns that humans face today. Over consumption of our natural resource base is jeopardizing ecosystems throughout the world. Wealthy nations like the US amount to 20 percent of the worlds population, yet they use more than 70 percent of the earths resources and generate an even higher volume of wastes. Some of these wastes are released into the atmosphere, rivers and oceans, others are land filled or incinerated, a small part is recycled. The standard notion of economic development envisions the rest of the worlds population moving progressively up the ladder of mass consumption. Clearly, the environmental implications of the global spread of mass consumption for resource use and environmental was te is staggering. In present times design culture also has greatly been influenced consumerism. Cities such as Las Vegas have dedicated there entire landscape to advertising to feed the need of consumerism. For the Utopian design at hand I have targeted the hospitality sector of the economy which attracts consumers owed to the hectic and fast-paced life we live today. I have chosen the Singapore Cricket Club for my bar and restaurant. The design is held together by the concept of network. Taking into consideration that the bar is the main attraction of a bar and highest revenue earning point in an FB. Using the concept of network my design directs all consumers towards the bar. The bar acts as the main attraction of my design which can be viewed from all levels and spaces. The unconventional feature of the bar is that it suspends 3000mm from the ground. As people walk through narrow corridors directing them towards the bar they are suddenly engulfed by the large open suspending bar and LED lighting panels from the ceiling going past 3 floors lighting up the entire design and focusing mainly onto the bar. The cuckoo club in London is a great example of how the bar acts as a key attraction in the premises. The entire space communicates glamour, drama and luxury. It represents a grand, dramatic film set with huge doors sweeping stairs, silk and voile drapes. The bar acts as a key feature covered entirely in gold sequins, set beneath a ceiling of diamond pattern panels of LED lighting (acrylic domes set into panels and then colour-washed across the whole ceiling), fringed with diamante beading. The lighting is flexible, varying from simulated daylight to pinks and purple in the night. The second case study chosen is Wine tower bar in UK. A 13 meter high wine tower forms the alluring centre point of the Radisson SAS Hotel lounge and bar at Stansted airport. The temperature controlled structure, constructed out of 6.5 tons of laminated glass, a steel core and a pyramid shaped roof, is fitted with an acrylic rack filled with 4,000 bottles of red and white wine. The enchantingly lit column not only serves as a large open wine rack but also functions as a theatre in which 4 graceful wine angels suspended on cables collect the bottles ordered by the guests. With the help of remote control and computer controlled winches, these women glide effortlessly up and down, whilst also slipping in a few acrobatics in the between. In conclusion Consumer culture has been incredibly successful. Not only has it been successful in satisfying our needs and desires, but it also has been successful in redefining what are needs are and expanding our desires. If we accept these desires as natural or inevitable, then consumer society seems natural and inevitable as well. Consumerism on the other hand does not only feed our desires but has left this earth with beyond reconcilable damages. Today are demand for goods is increasing beyond the capability of what our earth can come up with it. If our greed for consumption keeps increasing we will have to very soon give up our basic needs because our demands cannot be kept up with.

salinger Essay -- essays research papers

LIFE AND PHILOSOPHY OF J.D. SALINGER J.D. Salinger is one of the most renowned writers of his time. J. D. Salinger is most known for his controversial in the Catcher in the Rye. Salinger is also known for many of his writings such as Franney and Zooey, Nine Stories, and Raise High the Roof Beam, Carpenters. The summer of 1930 he was voted â€Å"The Most Popular Writer†. â€Å"Salinger is a beautifully deft, professional who gives us a chance to catch quick, half-amused, half-frightened glimpses of ourselves and our contemporaries, as he confronts us with his brilliant mirror images† (Lomazoff 1). In the novel, Catcher in the Rye, there is a relationship between the main character, Holden Caulfield, and Salinger. J.D. Salinger’s Catcher in the Rye explicitly demonstrates his life and philosophy in relation to his work.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Salinger was born January 1, 1919 in New York City. He was the second of two children. He had an older sister named Doris. His parents were Sol and Marie Salinger. His father was Jewish, and his mother was Scotch-Irish. He was raised up in Manhattan during 1920’s and early 1930’s. His parents enrolled him in McBurney Prep School in 1932. He flunked and his parents sent him to Valley Forge Military Academy, Pennsylvania. Later, after graduating he was drafted into the military and was known for carrying a typewriter around so he could write and publish stories. His perspective on life was molded by his experience in World War II. The ...

Land Law Essay

Proprietary estoppel protects a person who has a non contractual agreement over land but they have suffered a detriment due to them acting upon a reliance based on an assurance made by the claimant. There has been much discussion in recent case law and academic commentaries as to the elements which make up the nature of proprietary estoppel. Unconscionaibility is a major point for discussion in deciding whether it should be treated as a separate element or if it is linked into the three main elements. This essay will consider and discuss the nature of proprietary estoppel and the two views on unconscionaibility; whether there will always be unconscionaibility if there has been a non-performance of an assurance causing the claimant to suffer a detriment based on the assurance which they relied on or if unconscionaibility should be proven as a separate element in each case. The starting point of proprietary estoppel was in the case of Willmott v Barber (1880) where five criteria were laid down, which had to be satisfied by a person claiming proprietary estoppel and the courts applied these criteria to a wide range of proprietary estoppel claims. However these criteria were criticised for being too strict leading to the broader approach established in Taylor Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Trustees Co Ltd (1982) where Oliver J stated: ‘whether, in particular individual circumstances, it would be unconscionable for a party to be permitted to deny that which, knowingly or unknowingly, he has allowed or encouraged another to assume to his detriment’. Although the approach became broader there still remained essential elements which must be satisfied for a successful claim. The more modern approach towards proprietary estoppel is based on three main elements, firstly an assurance of land or property being made to the claimant, the claimant relying on the assurance which has been made and finally the claimant suffering a detriment as a consequence of relying on the assurance made. The main point for discussion and questioning in proprietary estoppel is the role of unconscionaibility and whether it should be treated as a fourth element which too must be satisfied in order for a claim to be successful or if unconscionaibility is interlinked with the other elements of proprietary estoppel. Proprietary estoppel acts as ‘a sword and a shield’ and can be used in one of two ways. ‘Put positively, the reason why it is possible to use proprietary estoppel to generate a property interest in a favour of a claimant despite the absence of the normal formality rules is because of the need to prevent unconscionable conduct. This is why unconscionaibility is the foundation of estoppel. It is the antidote to the otherwise fatal absence of formality. ’ This is one of the views on unconscionaibility which suggest that unconscionaibility is at the heart of proprietary estoppel rather than a separate element of it. The first element of proprietary estoppel is encouragement where the claimant’s belief that they would have some rights over land or property has been encouraged by the promisor and this could have been done actively or passively. Active encouragement is seen in common expectation cases where the claimant has been actively persuaded through an express representation as in Inwards v Baker (1965) where a son was actively encouraged to build on his fathers land in the expectation that it would be his in the future. Common expectation cases are dealt with more generously by judges, compared to passive cases, as the promisor has lead the claimant to have a reasonable belief that they would acquire the land therefore leading them to rely upon that assurance causing them to suffer a detriment. It would be seen as unconscionable in a common expectation case for the claimant to have been encouraged to suffer a detriment for the promisor to then go back on their assurance, meaning that unconscionaibility is instantly a running theme in the elements as it can be seen at the first instance and should therefore not be treated as a separate element. The encouragement could also be passive, for example a land owner standing by watching someone build on their land knowing that somebody is acting under a mistaken belief. The nature of a passive expectation made to the claimant can be distinguished in commercial and domestic cases as was seen in Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd (2008) where the House of Lords established that the expectation of an interest in land should not be vague in a commercial situation. The expectation should be for ‘a certain interest in land’ for proprietary estoppel purposes which was not the expectation held by Cobbe therefore the expectation was held to be too vague. Lord Scott stated ‘Unconscionaibility in my opinion plays a very important part in the doctrine of equitable estoppel, in unifying and confirming, as it were, the other elements. If the other elements appear to be present but the result does not shock the conscience of the court, the analysis needs to be looked at again. This statement shows how case law endorses the unconscionaibility approach as being interlinked with the other elements of proprietary estoppel however if all of the elements are not satisfied there can not be a claim for proprietary estoppel as is the case here. In domestic (family) cases, the nature of the expectation doesn’t have to be so specific as long as there is an interest or right in land that would amount to a significant expectation. The assura nce made must be clear enough so that claimant is found to have relied upon. Lord Walker stated in the case of Thorner v Major (2009) â€Å"There is no definition of proprietary estoppel that is both comprehensive and uncontroversial†¦the doctrine is based on three main elements, although they express them in slightly different terms: a representation or assurance made to the claimant; reliance on it by the claimant; reliance on it by the claimant; and detriment to the claimant in consequence of his (reasonable) reliance† One view on unconscionaibility stated that ‘Once there has been detrimental reliance on an assurance, it is unconscionable to withdraw it’ therefore if it cannot be proven that an assurance existed then it wont be unconscionable for it to be withdrawn showing that unconscionaibility is a running theme within proprietary estoppel rather than a separate element. One difficulty in deciding these kinds of cases is that although an assurance has been made to the claimant in the way of a will, the claimant is also aware th at the will could be revoked at any time therefore the question to be asked is whether their reliance based on the assurance was adequate. The second element of proprietary estoppel is reliance where the claimant must have been encouraged to rely on the promisor’s assurance which has caused them to suffer a detrimental loss by changing their position and there must be a sufficient causal link between this in that the encouragement must have caused the detriment suffered. Reliance can not be treated as an element alone it has to have caused a change in the position of the claimant, if no detriment has been suffered then there can be no claim for proprietary estoppel. There are several ways in which the courts can show how the claimant was influenced to rely on the encouragement; firstly is by clearly showing that there has been a change in position by the claimants positive act, for example the claimant spending money on the land or making property improvements based on the assurance that it will become theirs, causing them to suffer a detriment. Where the claimant has acted in a way different to what he would had the assurance not been made nd relied on this can also show how the encouragement has influenced the reliance causing a detriment as in Jones (AE) v Jones (FW) (1977) where a son acted on the assurance of property becoming his left his job and house to live with his father, however had the assurance not had been made he would not have done this leading to the detriment that he suffered. There can be a presumption made that the claimant relied on the assurances given to them based on there conduct and in these cases the burden is put onto the other party to prove that the claimant did not rely on the promises made and this is hard to prove as it is a subjective matter based on the claimants state of mind. This was the case in Greasley v Cooke (1980) where the defendant did not have to prove that she relied on assurances as it was presumed from her conduct. The final element of proprietary estoppel is that the person must have suffered a detriment due to the reliance on the assurance which has caused a change in their position. The detriment suffered can be in many forms not just that of financial detriment although it must be substantial in making it unconscionable for the land owner to withdraw their promise of land to the claimant. Walton v Walton (1994) shows where financial detriment wasn’t the main detriment suffered, the claimant had suffered a personal detriment as he had spent years of his life relying on the assurance made to him that the farm would one day be his, and he couldn’t get those years of his life back. Public policy in formalities of contracts plays a major part in the deciding claims for proprietary estoppel. Section 2 Law of Property (Miscellaneous Previsions) Act 1989 states that (1) A contract for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land can only be made in writing and only by incorporating all the terms which the parties have expressly agreed in one document, or where contracts are exchanged, in each. This act stops informalities in land transfers where a claimant would be expected to sign up a contract but hasn’t done so, as in Cobbe, and this is where they would turn to proprietary estoppel to try and show that the detriment which they have suffered is due to the unconsionability of the removal of the assurance which they had originally relied on. Proprietary estoppel acts as a way around formalities and a form of protection for those who have not followed contractual formalities in the transfer of land. Why should people be able to use proprietary estoppel to make a claim for land where they have followed formalities and drawn up a contract as in Cobbe, it can be seen that it is not unconscionable for the promisor to withdraw as there is no contractual agreement. However in domestic cases where there wouldn’t always be an expectation of a legal contract to be drawn up proprietary estoppel can stop unfair decisions being made due to the lack of formalities where it would be unconscionable for the defendant to suffer a detriment due to an assurance on which they have relied. There are clearly two competing arguments against proprietary estoppel, the first being that ‘once there has been detrimental reliance on an assurance, it is unconscionable to withdraw it. Indicating that unconscionaibility is a function of the three elements. If unconscionaibility was seen as a separate element then it would be pointless in having formalities as it wouldn’t matter whether it was unconscionable or not as long as the other elements had been satisfied. The second view on unconscionaibility is that of it being a separate fourth element and in some circumstance this can be seen as being successful for example in commercial cases where the first three elements of proprietary estoppel have been established but it would be unconscionable for the claimant to benefit due to the lack of formalities and contractual agreement.

Acids and Bases Terms and Definitions

There are several methods of defining acids and bases. While these definitions dont contradict each other, they do vary in how inclusive they are. The most common definitions of acids and bases are Arrhenius acids and bases, Brà ¸nsted-Lowry  acids and bases, and Lewis acids and bases. Antoine Lavoisier, Humphry Davy, and Justus Liebig also made observations regarding acids and bases, but didnt formalize definitions. Svante Arrhenius  Acids and Bases The Arrhenius theory of acids and bases dates back to 1884, building on his observation that salts, such as sodium chloride, dissociate into what he termed ions when placed into water. acids produce H ions in aqueous solutionsbases produce OH- ions in aqueous solutionswater required, so only allows for aqueous solutionsonly protic acids are allowed; required to produce hydrogen ionsonly hydroxide bases are allowed Johannes Nicolaus Brà ¸nsted - Thomas Martin Lowry Acids and Bases The  Brà ¸nsted or  Brà ¸nsted-Lowry theory describes acid-base reactions as an acid releasing a proton and a base accepting a proton. While the acid definition is pretty much the same as that proposed by Arrhenius (a hydrogen ion is a proton), the definition of what constitutes a base is much broader. acids are proton donorsbases are proton acceptorsaqueous solutions are permissiblebases besides hydroxides are permissibleonly protic acids are allowed Gilbert Newton Lewis  Acids and Bases The Lewis theory of acids and bases is the least restrictive model. It doesnt deal with protons at all, but deals exclusively with electron pairs. acids are electron pair acceptorsbases are electron pair donorsleast restrictive of the acid-base definitions Properties of Acids and Bases Robert Boyle described the qualities of acids and bases in 1661. These characteristics may be used to easily distinguish between the two sets up chemicals without performing complicated tests: Acids taste sour (dont taste them!)—the word acid comes from the Latin acere, which means souracids are corrosiveacids change litmus (a blue vegetable dye) from blue to redtheir aqueous (water) solutions conduct electric current (are electrolytes)react with bases to form salts and waterevolve hydrogen gas (H2) upon reaction with an active metal (such as alkali metals, alkaline earth metals, zinc, aluminum) Common Acids citric acid (from certain fruits and veggies, notably citrus fruits)ascorbic acid (vitamin C, as from certain fruits)vinegar (5% acetic acid)carbonic acid (for carbonation of soft drinks)lactic acid (in buttermilk) Bases taste bitter (dont taste them!)feel slippery or soapy (dont arbitrarily touch them!)bases dont change the color of litmus; they can turn red (acidified) litmus back to bluetheir aqueous (water) solutions conduct an electric current (are electrolytes)react with acids to form salts and water Common Bases detergentssoaplye (NaOH)household ammonia (aqueous) Strong and Weak Acids and Bases The strength of acids and bases depends on their ability to dissociate or break into their ions in water. A strong acid or strong base completely dissociates (e.g., HCl or NaOH), while a weak acid or weak base only partially dissociates (e.g., acetic acid). The acid dissociation constant and base dissociation constant indicates the relative strength of an acid or base. The acid dissociation constant Ka is the equilibrium constant of an acid-base dissociation: HA H2O ⇆ A- H3O where HA is the acid and A- is the conjugate base. Ka [A-][H3O] / [HA][H2O] This is used to calculate pKa, the logarithmic constant: pka - log10 Ka The larger the pKa value, the smaller the dissociation of the acid and the weaker the acid. Strong acids have a pKa of less than -2.