Reflections on Bauman's Consuming Life

I have to say that this type of writing is exactly the writing style I hate. Bauman is wordy, redundant, and borders on pompous in his delivery of ideas. I feel like I could summarize his main points down to one chapter. AND - I kind of think there is some underlying misogyny here.

It should have struck me earlier when I looked at the cover. The woman. The heels. The suggestion of kicking back after a long day of shopping - indicated, of course, by the boutique-style bags at her feet. A bit unoriginal to say the least. But I overlooked it when I started reading it, and did not think to look back at it until the end of chapter one when Bauman paraphrases Colette Dowling's warning to the "Cinderellas of the coming age" and suggests that Dowling's warning is indicative of individualism at its root. Bauman cites another critic comparing Dowling's "fear of being dependent on another person" to that of the lone "American cowboy". I must have read that part over 5 times, because I just can not believe he would be that deliberately obtuse. The story of Cinderella is that of a woman whose only way out of an abusive situation is to rely on a man to save her. Now I have not read Dowling's work, but I'm a woman, and I am educated on the history of oppression, abuse and exploitation that women have experienced and continue to experience, so this seemed pretty self-explanatory to me. And the thing is - I think Bauman knows it too. Which set me on my guard from then on out.

In the next chapter, Bauman sets up the comparison between a society of consumers to that of a society of producers. Now since he obviously scorns the consuming society, there is a suggestion that the time when our society was a producer's society was better - perhaps even ideal. Who made up that society? "society 'interpellated' most of the male half of its members as primarily producers and soldiers, and almost all of the other (female) half as first and foremost their by-appointment purveyors of services (54)". Purveyors of services? Would that by chance make them - consumers? It was at that point that I flipped back to the front cover in speculation and noted, as said above, the message the front cover sends - and how cute those shoes were - strappy, cork heeled for comfort - anyway.

I refuse to believe that someone who has the intellect to write a book like this and recognize that banishing certain peoples to the "underclass" is a "value-laden choice, not a description"(125) cannot recognize a gender stereotype. So that sat with me throughout this reading, and I have to say it did kind of dampen his credibility to me. I felt that way reading Nelson Mandela's autobiography. To me, someone who is a freedom fighter, fights for the freedom of all. Yet he downplayed the actions of Winnie Mandela, and consistently chose to only speak about women in terms of the appearance and temperment throughout the book. That was a choice on his part. Anyway - total digression.

With all that said, I found myself nodding in agreement throughout the book, and also feeling a heaviness in my heart for the mess we've gotten ourselves into. I absolutely see his words manifested in the actions and behaviors of teachers and students in the classroom. The above quote - about a value-laden choice - is the underpinings of the Achievement Gap. Teachers are unwilling to change the way they are teaching because it works for White kids, and they have found success in their methods in the past. So what is the assumption behind these kinds of statements? That the fault lies with our kids of color. Time magazine published an article last year that claimed to update readers on the current state of NCLB. By the end of the article, I was so furious, I decided I would not trust anything written in Time again. It gave factual information - who was doing well - who wasn't - but there was no context for any of the information. The assumption was that the Achievement Gap exists because Whites and Blacks exist. Our teachers are modeling that same assumption when they refuse to look at their teaching methods. They do not know our kids, and they do not recognize the privileged lives they have lived in a world that has catered directly to them.

Our teachers will make comments about kids buying iPods and cell phone, but they don't have any money for lunch - not recognizing eactly what Bauman talks about both in chapters 2 and 4 when he quotes Belk quoting Shresta in that in order to avoid "social humiliation" they spend their money on "senseless consumer objects". It is so true. And to pay for that - they get after-school jobs that suck the life out of them so they have nothing to bring to school. It's not a place that will help them succeed in life, but rather something they have to get through. Yet our well-off students - most of which are in Honors classes - still have iPods, cell phones and computers, yet they do not have to have a job as long as they keep up their grades.

I have had bright kids who have had to leave the Honors track because they simply could not keep up with the workload AND go to work AND hand-write everything because they don't have computers. Yet we deem them the underclass. When we have optional assemblies at the end of the day, 70% of our students leave. When I first came to CRHS, I asked the principal if we are okay with this. He looked at me like I had grown another head and simply told me that these were the kids that really cared about school. 30% - accepting that numbe is a value-laden choice, not a description.

I just want to end with the fact that this book made me uncomfortable. I've observed much of this in school when I note the demographics of my regular and support classes versus my Honors classes, but I never thought of their marginalization in terms of "poor consumers". When Bauman talks about this on page 67 and states that people marginalize the poor because they do not add to the economy, I actually wrote "really?" off to the side. I've always thought that people have such a sense of entitlement, they don't want to have to pay for someone else. They say things like "my money" or "I pay enough in taxes" so I always thought of it as they feel justified in turning their backs on others. So the idea of "poor consumer" is swirling around in my head. I'm not discarding it - which tells me I do see truth in the statement - I just can't get my head around why it bothers me. Maybe because it is too simple. I don't know - I look forward to hearing what everyone has to say about this. Okay it is 10:57. I got send this baby on.