Hello everyone:
Economists argue that people seek to rationally maximize their self-interests in the marketplace.
Marketers, however, seek to link emotions, such as happiness, and aspirations, such as higher social status, to their products and brands to help sell them.
How might we use the perspectives of Descartes and Freud to explain our relationship to money and consumerism? Which view do you find more persuasive?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
In Descartes perspective, the mind and body work together to fulfill the want they are seeking. It is the mind that makes the decision when purchasing a product or brand, but the affect influences the body overall towards society due to the fact that we cannot see our minds. Money gives us power. With power, we get what we want and feel better when we have it.
Freud's perspective is what we understand as "acceptable" in today's society. We are motivated to be interested on what we think is appropriate to everyone else. Marketers are playing a part by manipulating/ influence our choices by establishing what is 'cool' or proper throughout everyday living in relation to products and brands.
Freud's view is more persuasive because everyone wants to fit in with the crowd and be recognized in society. Sure we can make our own decisions in regards to Descartes theory, but again, we may not be "acceptable" to everyone elses standards.
Money is what people want, and consume is what people do with the it. Marketing and advertising is everywhere. Virtually everywhere you go, you are being exposed to some sort of advertisement.
Many people consume without giving any thought. People go to shopping centers with money, but with no real needs. They allow themselves to be persuaded by the advertisements.
Perhaps this is a conscious choice? maybe these people have enough money that they are looking for a place to throw it away?
When we look at ads, we decide weather the brand has the same beliefs, thoughts and morals as we do. Advertisers give products a personality in order for consumers to make a connection with the mind. If a certain product does not make a connection with the consumer, ultimately the consumer will not purchase the product. This notion contradicts the idea that we think for ourselves.
With these ideas in mind, as Freud said, I think Descartes ideas are too simplistic.
There is a lot of research involved in creating an ad. Marketers dissect the human brain and its thoughts. They specifically go after a certain target market knowing what this group likes and dislikes. They trigger all the things that this certain group wants to hear in order to persuade them to identify with their product.
Descartes' theories on the mind are quite close to economists' view that people are rational when it comes to money: our relationships with money can often be broken down into a cause and effect system where the end result is all that counts so long as it is beneficial, and this system is based entirely in logic and reason. Even if the end result is something that will benefit us emotionally, to reach a conclusion this way requires thinking and reasoning, an almost scientific process.
Clearly, then, Freud's perspective on money and consumerism would ring true with that of marketers. Freud would conclude that because of our minds' constant struggle between id, ego, and superego, we are drawn to purchase based on either primal or socially acceptable motives, that is, draws that are emotionally motivated. Freud would say that even if it seemed we were thinking logically about our purchases and motivations, final decisions would have little to do with our conscious thoughts.
I find Freud's view quite persuasive--his theories of the id, ego, and superego can be used to explain a huge amount of our purchases and many of the products currently on the market, as well as the incredibly high success rate of lifestyle marketing.
With the thoughts of psychological endearment felt through Freud's analysis is it not one's own inner workings that marketers should be selling, and in fact is that not the truest form of advertising selling a dream, an idea, something intangible in the greatest sense.
Is it wrong then to sell to these dreams or are we selling the dream, in much the same way that when you buy a lotto ticket your not buying the paper or the ink but the dream it stands for. This is truly an advent of our psychological state since the monotony of the contemporary world has put a strain on our brains to survive without needing much exertion.
We no longer simply survive, and because of this we are lost to think of other things. Then truly if this is the case the problem is not with marketers or capitalists but in the simple fact that we no longer live our lives on the cusp of "life." Instead were just going through the motions.
In the context of economical choice, I would like to question our 'rationality' at the first place. What is rational to me is a subjective issue. The reason\logic behind consuming any particular product might be further explained as fulfilling our Ego Super ego or Id whatever which may sound very personal or self centric; but at the same time, in broader sense, it might also satisfy our social drive to be part of or be accepted by a larger portion of the society who also consume that particular product. In this way, we are just as much rational about our choice as our role models are; in other words, rational choice is not made in individual level, but it is often shaped up by collective consciousness.
Even as a child, we use to project the same behavior – we nag for toys not because children are driven by primal ego and zero tolerance to the concept of sharing, but because our peer kids already have it. Consider yourself the last person on earth in a post nuclear war environment with all the supermarkets still intact; which toilet paper would you pick first for yourself? Does the brand and quality matter when you would soon be running out of one?
Marketers add emotional aspects to their products in order to define a certain lifestyle or role model to follow. When we buy the products, our only rational choice to make is to decide which lifestyle we want to belong to. We are more like Nietzsche’s sheep, rather than Descartes’ ‘always in control’ rational mind or Freud’s ever struggling beast vs. beauty of an unconscious divided mind.
Descartes would say that our drive to accumulate money is a result in the increase of individualism in our society. It is now our job to do as well for ourselves as we can. It is our job to show off our monetary status.
I find Freud’s view more persuasive. Freud would say that our drive to accumulate money and material objects is caused by our selfish id. We are driven by our baser instincts to be selfish.
Lindsay Hunter
Economic situation of a country influence people' buying decision and what they consume.
In some places like the Descartes' perspective mind is more dominant.
Because they need basic things first to survive. Hovewer in most of places people do their decision emotinally.Because images become more important than rationality.
Everybody sells the same product.
Maybe 50 years ago it was important to choose the detergent which clean better white laundries but now consumer bought the product with that he/she can identifie. As much as everything becomes similar marketing has to work on more our emotinal needs to differenciate itself.
Now the consumer expectations is higher. It is not enough for me that a shampoo just cleans my hair. From a shampoo which cost 6$ I can expect a daily confidence.
At the end, to satisfy my ego the products become easy tools and marketing people are using and manipulating our weaknesses for their ooportunity.
fusun uzun
Our relationship to money and consumerism according to Freud, stems from eros/the id. Immediate self gratification is an irrational thought causing consumers to buy things based more on status than function.
Descartes view is based on Mind and Body. The body cannot make decisions without the mind, and the mind cannot act upon those decisions without the body. It is a theory that we make a decision based on what we can accomplish with our 'self' and the status that can be set, in our mind.
I think that both Descartes and Freud have equally compelling theories and in their respective times were correct. Today, people still buy for pleasure, but are never truly pleased. Society causes us to want more and more.
In the world of advertising many of us already know that marketers seek to link emotions and aspirations to their products and brands to help sell them. We use the perspectives of Descartes and Freud to explain our relationship to money and consumerism by focusing on explanation of self (based on mind) rather than body. I find Freud’s perspective to explain our relationship to money and consumerism more persuasive. His three part theory of ‘self ‘composed of 3 levels: id, superego and ego link to product purchases.
For example: Timberland Boots.
When buying a pair of Timberland Boots we consider Eros: our pursuit of pleasure: why we want the boots in the first place to Thanatos: aggression/violence: what can/will we do to get our hands on the boots.
It is because of this potential reasoning why economists argue that people seek to rationally maximize their self-interests in the marketplace.
Descartes and Freud has a different view towards the functions of mind and body and which one has predominance over the other.
Descartes thinks that the mind, according to the person's perception of what suits his needs or status, controls the body to take the purchase action.
Freud argues that purchase can be based on unconsciousness.
I think Freud's theory is more persuasive. Facts support his theory. We see an incredible amount of advertisement everyday. Their aim is to make people buy with their money. However, no one would really use their mind to think of why they buy a product(At least not all the time). Marketers have their ways to get people into purchasing without thinking of "why". Many of marketers are watching people's unconsciousness in purchasing.
Money is something everyone can realate to. It has real value, and is often labeled as a source of happiness. Descartes point of rationalism is the persuit of happiness. If money is what makes people happy, than according to him, they are being rational.
Unlike Descartes, Freuds ideas of the id, ego and the super ego can relate to the consumers purchase decision. Keeping it simple is more effective.
Perusuing happiness, is the ultimate goal of any being on this planet, be it money, health or etc.
Whether this thinking is not ethical or not, individualy, its one thing we all persue.
Post a Comment