A few days ago, I wrote a post to defend academics’ use of jargon. I argued that using jargon helps to jumpstart a discussion on a complicated topic, instead of having to start from the very beginning, and also helps to develop further our thought on the topic. (https://kimchiforthought.wordpress.com/2014/12/17/is-jargon-necessary/)
Today, I want to argue the opposite viewpoint. Sometimes, an observant person in the middle of real life can intuitively see through what an academic says through long, elaborate arguments and analyses. I am comparing my grandmother, who was illiterate and did not finish even elementary school education, and Juliet Schor, one of my favorite sociologists as of today.
I spent this afternoon, reading Schor’s discussion of consumption patterns. According to her, income inequality is a big problem, and we have to try to overcome it. At the same time, however, this effort to close the gap in incomes should be accompanied by an understanding of our consumption patterns and, more importantly, an effort to reduce our scale of consumption. According to Schor, when many American families talk about the difficulties of making ends meet, yes, we can solve their problem by distributing resources more evenly (by seeing to it that the top 20% shares more with the bottom 80%) and getting these families more money. However, this solution alone is limited, because we are living in an economy which drives us to buy more and consume more. Schor points out that it becomes more and more difficult to keep up with the middle class standards. In the past, you could have one TV at home and be considered middle class. Today, you need two TVs or more. In the past, you needed one small passenger car. Today, you need two cars or a SUV. In the past, you could visit Niagara Falls for family vacation, but today, you need to book a trip to Italy. Given this “upscaling of consumption” which compels us to buy more expensive things to keep up, Schor argues, it is possible that someday, an average American family generates a six digit income and still finds itself struggling to make ends meet. This is the reason why Schor calls for the reduction of our consumption. Instead of working an extra hour and spending the extra income to buy a pretty dress, let’s not work the extra hour and instead spend the leisure hour to read a book or play with your dog. Forget the dress.
I think this is a fascinating argument. And here is a moment that made me laugh in the empty room like crazy. Schor says, “when people care only about relative position, then general increases in income and consumption do not yield gains in well-being.” My uneducated grannie used to say, “when you make more money, you create more reasons to spend money.” One line summary of Schor’s long book. Crystal clear, free of jargon, yet without impairing Schor’s argument even a bit. Brava, grannie!
Kimchi For Thought 