|
 |
|
|
|
Neo-Consumer
Who am I?
Seemingly, the perils of our time can all be connected to our culture’s narcissistic benchmark of consumerism. It’s an easy analysis. The primary patterns of consuming have led to consumerism. And, these greed patterns have contributed to many perils ... from the latest stock market crash to the demise of the “American family.” Is this our future? Or, is there a new consumer emerging?
Consuming is a necessary part of our life. We must consume to live. The issue is how we consume. When consuming becomes:
the primary source of our identity
the genesis of how we motivate ourselves
the center piece for how we connect
and the predominant resource for hope,
we are not simply consuming. We are living patterns of consumerism. Each culture consumes in a contextual and culturally specific way. Ergo, with each cultural shift there is the opportunity to reshape what it means to consume and move away from, or toward, consumerism.
The Geonomadic Consumer (pre-agrarian)
The Geonomadic’s chief consumption patterns revolved around one of three lifestyles.
The first nomadic lifestyle is as a hunter-gatherer. The key consumption question is, “Is it good for me?” The hunter-gatherer would travel in search for food sources that would fulfill their specific need. Consumption levels were low and flexible, as was the required travel time.
The second nomadic lifestyle is pastoral. The pastoral nomad asks first, “Is it good for my flock?” The pastoral nomad would travel from place to place seeking food sources and safety for their flock. The flock’s centric consumption pattern required more geography and more time to move. Consumption levels varied with flock size. Most importantly, the nomad’s own needs were secondary to those of the flock.
The third nomadic consumption behavior is peripatetic. This tribe’s main concern was to find a customer to purchase product. “Will you purchase what I have to offer?” is the paramount question. Commerce and quick transport were keys for survival. Time was split between finding customers and making product.
These Geonomadic lifestyles were practiced in a mono-tribal way. Each had it’s own distinct pattern of consuming and guiding question to provide for basic needs. As we moved into the Agrarian culture, the context prescribed a new consumer.
The Agrarian Consumer
The fundamental cultural characteristics changed as the Agrarian developed new ways of thinking, behaving, communicating and connecting. In the Agrarian shift, life revolves around:
settlement
exclusive ownership
geographical proximity
control and maintain
Ergo, the agrarian mindset refocuses the core consumption question. All three Geonamadic questions survive but, instead of a mono-tribal orientation, they are now practiced in a hierarchical fashion. Where the Geonomadic tribe had one guiding question per tribe type, the Agrarian shifts all three consumption questions under the influence of one over-arching concern: “Is it good for me?”
For example, “Is it good for my flock?” becomes an, “Is it good for me?” query. Because, if it is “good for my flock” it will ultimately be “good for me.” For the Agrarian, if that personal connection is not evident, the action is ignored for one that would fulfill the master quest, “Is it good for me?” All other questions are slaves.
At first glance, it would be easy to demonize this pattern as narcissistic. To envelop all questions inside a “me” master quickly pushes an analysis of pathology. This is like candy corn to any ”arm-chair” sociologist: easy buy-in for your thesis. However, it would be irresponsible to conclude that the Agrarian’s “me” filter is all self-serving.
The reality is, a hierarchical consumer can produce a focus that moves a society forward into greatness. The drive that became known as “The American Dream” was fueled by such a focus. Improved farming techniques that escalated the bushel-per-acre ratio supplied an unprecedented abundance for an entire society. The industrial revolution carted in discovery after discovery on what seemed to be an endless assembly line of “me.” The Enlightenment (and very individualistic) propensity for dissecting everything down to its smallest particle opened a entire universe of understanding. All such advancements where made during a quest to answer a “me” question. Consequently, it would be too simplistic to conclude that our free enterprise is rooted exclusively in narcissistic greed. In it’s best form, the Agrarian “me” orientation has encouraged healthy advancement.
For instance, I enjoy the comforts that arose from this hierarchical focused quest. In fact, I’m enjoying such an invention now, my personal computer. And, you’re using it now by reading this on printed paper or online. Even the technology to have a wide base of literacy is an enjoyment of the me-focused Agrarian consumer. The number of advancements are too vast and embedded into our lives to elucidate. But, the truth is, much good has come from the Agrarian’s quest to answer, “Is it good for me?”
The rest of the truth, however, is that these discoveries have also cost us. The number of ills from this hierarchical focused quest for “me” are as legion as the benefits. When an entire culture is driven by one enslaving, unbalanced question, disharmony results. And disharmony that encourages malignant narcissism which will lead to disaster. We are all at least a little aware of the impending doom that futurists are announcing. But is this our future? Our hope is in a new consumer ... a Technomadic consumer.
The Technomadic Consumer
As culture moves from an Agrarian to a Technomadic understanding of consumption, a new kind of consumer emerges. The Technomad shifts to living patterns of:
Holistic, relative, hybrid, movement
Stewardship
Relational Proximity
Collaborative Process
Again during this shift, all three Geonomadic questions remain. Yet, rather than practicing the three questions in a mono-tribal or hierarchical pattern, the Technomadic consumer now practices all three synchronistically.
In her book, Megatrends 2010: The Rise of Conscious Capitalism, Patricia Aburdene describes these new consumers as “Conscious Consumers.” These are “Value-Driven Consumers ... who’ve fled the mass market, are a multi-billion-dollar ‘niche.’ Whether buying hybrid cars, green building supplies or organic food, they vote with their values. So, brands that embody positive values will attract them.”
Agreed. But, where do these values come from? And, is the shift only about a value quest?
It is not a fair assessment to describe the Agrarian consumer as a valueless consumer. Similarly, it is not correct to describe the Technomadic consumer as a pioneer in value discovery. What is true is that the values used by the agrarian now seem to be excessive, narcissistic, and destructive. We have moved to a time where fundamentally positive values have degenerated. That does not discount the original values embraced by the Agrarian. It only recognizes that they are now being lived out dysfunctionally.
Aburdene claims that there is a “Spiritual Transformation” transpiring within capitalism. This spiritual transformation may be emerging from the Technomad’s trinitarian question, “Is it good for me ... is it good for my flock (tribe) ... will someone purchase what I have to offer?” These questions are not practiced as three separate quests, but as one holistic question. One does not exist without the other. Nor is one a slave or master of the other. Where the Agrarian hierarchy supplied much needed focus for society, the Technomadic synchronistic/trinitarian question supplies holism.
When “Is it good for me?” is asked in harmony with “Is it good for my flock?” and “Will you purchase what I have to offer?”, the fundamental search is not “me” but self care for the good of the whole. Hope, self-identity, and our connections are not found in “me” but in the care of one’s self in context. Technomadic consumption is not primarily concerned with how maximum production can be achieved, but what is sustainable. It is not simply, “How much can I get for me?” It is, “How can I care for my needs while caring for the sustainable whole?”
When a Technomadic asks, “Is it good for my flock?” they are not becoming slaves to their flock as their Geonomadic grandparents did. The question comes out of a deep compassion for their family, tribe, family, and world. They are well aware of the contextual connection to “Is it good for me?” and “Will you purchase what I have to offer?”
“Will you purchase what I have to offer?” is nuanced by the Technomad. Collaboration is a primary value. And, this question is a collaborative invitation. Their version is, “Will you take me seriously?” The Technomad wants to engage with their world immediately. They are not interested in the “climbing the ladder” process. Nor are they interested in silo-ing themselves into little compartments. They present the whole of who they are and want to participate instantly. They offer themselves and want the world to take them seriously.
Technomadic consumers are not altruistic. There can be a dark side to their quest. For the healthy Technomad, these are honest questions of healthy care, compassion, and collaboration. For the Technomadic “Narcissus”, these are questions of unhealthy consumerism (“Is it good for me?”), heroic grooming (“Is it good for my flock?”), and ego seeking strokes. (“Will you take me seriously?”) Technomads must learn from the past and gain the wisdom of an anarchical, enlightened self-interest.
Reaching the Neo-consumer
The themes for marketing products will need to change if the Technomadic consumer is to be reached. The major themes of marketing have been rooted in the “Is it good for me?” pursuit of a past culture. Each commercial and ad campaign developed has rightfully spent it’s energy helping the consumer answer this driving question.
Athletic shoes proclaim the achievements that can be accomplished when worn. Books shout about how they can make you a better person and bring purpose to your life. Cleaners let you know the status that can be achieved if you use their products. Churches and community organizations cater their programs to “felt needs”, i.e., for “me” development. And again, the list is too long to exhaust. But this orientation is no longer enough. Consumers are no longer driven by the “me” question alone.
There is a new consumer that has emerged. And, marketers and products are beginning to take notice. You can’t buy a cup of coffee without being keenly aware that it is served in a recycled cup, that the coffee was obtained with a responsible labor contract, and the environment to sit down and enjoy your brew offers chances of connect-ability (online and off).
Every product, whether a car, or shoe, or relationship, or new job offer, or bible, will need to take seriously the holistic adventure of a Technomad. Each product will need to answer synchronistically, “Is it good for me ... is it good for my flock (tribe) ... will you take me seriously?”
|
|
|
|
|
(3)
NO COMMENTS HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THIS ARTICLE