2: Dining Out In The Individualized Era
People attempt to express an individual personality through the goods they consume, but the author wonders if that is indeed the case. In the present day, the options are provided and tastes are influenced by the broader culture, such that the range of individualism, such that we may be products of a social environment.
Postmodernism
The term "postmodernism" derives from sociology, and is meant to represent a period of time between the second World War and the present day - and as such it is broad and vague to the point of being almost meaningless. As a result the term is slathered onto any aspect of contemporary society that is different to that which came before.
(EN: This argument is often made in academic circles, and the general consensus is that it is for the future to sort out the eras, as we cannot presently perceive what will be remembered as characteristic of the time in which we're living. Given that the world of today is vastly different than the 1950s [which were also in the postmodern era] it has been argued that postmodernism is dead and we are now living in a different, as yet unnamed era.)
The author considers the distinctive feature of the present day to be individualism - the sense of a person who exists unto themselves rather than seeking to conform to the social constructs of gender, race, or class. Even while social institutions such as government, religion, and the commercial world have expanded in size, they have diminished in importance in the manner in which individuals regard themselves as being part of a broader culture.
In effect, individualism is the disintegration of mainstream culture, in which conformity to established standards is less meaningful or desirable than it had been in past times. The vestiges of traditional society remain, but are becoming increasingly vestigial as individuals seek to establish a unique identity and purpose separated from the groups and institutions to which they happen to belong. That is, they are choosing to pursue their own goals and live according to their own standards.
Postmodern consumerism and self-identity
Sociologists have traditionally been disinterested in consumption, largely regarding it as a byproduct of other behaviors. It is only recently that human behavior as a consumer has been garnered interest. The concept of consumerism has also been applied to a broader range of phenomena than purchased goods: theater audiences, college students, recipients of charity, and even taxpayers are seen as consumers.
Particular in an era in which there are many options, and the consumer's choice of one option over another is more influential than a producer's desire to provide it, the authority of the consumer has grown, to the point that producers must consider the demands of consumers if they are to have a market for their products.
(EN: The assertion this is a change or new development is naive, as it's long been recognized, though not universally, that production is guided - and it can even be said is that occurs at all - as a method by which the demands of consumers can be satisfied. However, I would agree that this is only recently occurred to mass-market producers who previously had more latitude due to a lack of competition. Consumers will begrudgingly accept any product when there's not other means of serving a need, but when competition exists they have the ability to select.)
One review of the literature on theories of postmodern consumer culture defines three central themes:
- The symbolic value of merchandise
- The aesthetic value of everyday life
- The emergence of lifestyle culture
It is plainly evident that there has been rapid expansion in productive activity and productivity since the 1950s, providing a cornucopia of products to the consumer market. The optimistic perspective is that the quality of life has significantly improved, particularly for the lower ranks of society. The pessimistic perspective is that this is entirely materialistic and that the need to be constantly producing and consuming has diminished the quality of life. In effect, that time, energy, and interest is focused exclusively on commercial activity to the detriment of intellectual, spiritual, or any other activity.
It is also observed that this increase in the availability of goods has given rise to the need to make choices based on aesthetic qualities - that is, non-functional attributes of products. That is, there are two or more alternatives that both satisfy the basic needs (any coat will keep you warm), consumers must consider other reasons to prefer one over the other (if any of twenty or fifty coats will provide adequate worth, choosing among them must be based on other factors). As such, mankind has no difficulty having what he needs, but can place his attention on deciding what he wants.
This leads to the third point: when there are a vast array of consumer choices, they can be combined in various ways to create appealing lifestyles. The concept of lifestyle deals with a desire of a person to have, or be perceived as having, certain qualities, as a matter of their identity. Functional an aesthetic qualities aside, what brand of cigarette best defines a working man, and which defines a member of the upper classes? This is the essence of the idea that "clothes make the man."
But what kind of man does clothing make? In previous eras, the categorization of humanity was rather narrow - people were sorted by their social class, religion, ethnicity, and other basic factors. In the present day we find that lifestyles are defined by more arbitrary and often ill-defined characteristics. To be "sporty" or "green" can be achieved independent of demographics.
It is mentioned, a bit obliquely, that lifestyle is similar to any social phenomenon, intended to define groups of people to which a given individual belongs or does not long based on his conformity to their norms. It is often the external trappings - the places a person goes, what they wear, what they drive, etc. - that are used to communicate to others the groups to which an individual wishes to belong. To say that people in a given group dress is a certain way is to say that they purchase the same kinds of clothing.
Returning to the concept of individualization - in a society in which there are many social groups, he is free to choose for himself which he aspires to belong, and tailor his consumption to communicate to others of that group that he is one of them. And because a person can move freely between groups and participate in more than one, the ability to assemble and change this collection of identities has the appearance of individualism - but on the other hand could rightly be called a desperate and random attempt to conform to many conflicting things at once.
The author quotes Storey (1999) who suggested that identify formation ins contemporary society is "less about roots and more about routes." That is, the cultural identity a person forms is not inherited from his family, but defined in the process of coming into contact with other individuals in his daily life. There is no central control of social norms, but widespread influence.
There's a clever bit about the way in which the consumers in the market are on a continuum between being seduced and denied: seduced into purchasing things they do not need, or denied the ability to purchase the things they do need. (EN: The determination of "need" has always been subjective, and the critics never seem to be happy, but it's something each consumer decides for himself.)
Some random bits follow:
- Competition between consumers and suppliers is regarded as "harmless" in a free market because it represents a situation in which neither side of the competition is able to control the other in any significant way
- While the social significance of consumer choices seems to be the primary factor of completion, it does not mean that it is dominant. Most people in most situations still consider their budget and their needs first - but when one can be met within the constraints of the other, factors that seem unimportant are the means of distinction.
- It doesn't seem to matter much how the market is performing, there will always be criticism and the suggestion that it is not doing what it should. By still, it is entirely functional in enabling consumers to get what they want and signal the producers to better serve their needs.
- Social pressure is no longer placed on individuals by institutions that attempt to control culture - and it is difficult in the present day to identify exactly who is in control of culture - it seems to be less about conforming to what is known to be acceptable and more about an individual's anxiety over what he thinks might be unacceptable.
While the present situation seems somewhat chaotic and uncontrolled, it does give free rein to personal preference and an individual's right to choose that which he considers to be worth pursuing, rather than demanding that he conform to a standard imposed upon him by others.
Deindividualized stylization
Some accept the argument that traditional institutions of culture are diminishing in their authority, but at the same time do not feel that people are in general evolving as individuals, but instead are seeking more arbitrary standards to which they can conform. This is the notion of "tribe," a new kind of social group that is informally constructed by common practices and does not develop a traditional control structure, but remains informally governed by participants.
In essence, each member of a society identifies himself with various tribes related to some aspect of their lives (culture, hobbies, preferences, activities, etc.) to whose perceived norms members seek to conform. A tribe is differentiated to an ordinary group by public expression and the adoption of conspicuous totems of membership, by which members seek to be identified with a given tribe and dissociate themselves from others.
Within tribes there exists a system of codes, conformance to which indicates an individual's membership - which his to say that the tribal style is communicated, and the criteria for joining is that an individual must "stylize" himself accordingly to be accepted into the tribe.
Tribal styles express themselves through consumerism, directly or indirectly: the adoption of a certain manner of dress, participation in a certain manner of activity, gathering with others of a trine in a given location, etc. all have a commercial component.
It's also suggested that because there is no formal leadership or command hierarchy in a tribe they are more or less democratic, with individuals "voting" whether a given element is or is not a component of the tribal style guide merely by their decision to adopt it. It is also suggested that lack of consistency and reduction to the lowest common denominator is "forging a new civilization of banality."
Dining out
The author admits he's been havering thus far, and means to get around to considering the impact of postmodernism on dining choices. Restaurants, specifically, are clearly a means by which the style-conscious individuals conspicuously display their consumption. The restaurant is not merely a place to eat, but a place to be seen eating.
The restaurant itself is a space design to reflect culture - the architecture and interior design of public spaces within the restaurant are not merely utilitarian, nor designed for functional efficiency. It is likewise not a place to eat, but a place for a certain group of people to eat, tailored to appeal to customers with specific lifestyle and self-identity choices.
It is suggested that, in attempting to cater to the desires of a given group of consumers, a restaurant is itself defining what those desires ought to be, though the relationship is somewhat circular: the restaurant seeks to appeal to a group, and if it is successful in attracting them, it becomes the definition of a place or environment in which that group dines to anyone who is not already a member of the group.
When customers consider their restaurant choices, they are deciding where they belong - and indirectly, which groups within a society they belong among. To feel comfortable dining in a given restaurant is to feel that the identity of the places matches one's own self-image, that dining "here" is pleasant because it suits the person I am, or the person I wish to be.
Specific mention is made of the phenomenon of "celebrity chefs" who present not only a venue for dining, but themselves as the personification of a lifestyle to which their audiences feel attracted. This is a marked change from the era in which a chef was merely a person who cooked for others, a subservient and unglamorous role.
(EN: The author spent quite a but of time considering postmodernism and very little considering the restaurant industry, and I have the sense that he didn't quite have his thoughts together and is attempting to sprinkle some relevance onto his rant. While his observations are interesting, they seem entirely random and a bit desperate, rather than well structured and thoroughly considered.)