Consumerism and the Symptoms of Youth

Modern philosopher Jean Baudrillard’s “The System of Objects”, a philosophical assessment of the virtual indispensability of consuming in our society, very well serves as a finishing touch accessory to Bret Easton Ellis’ provocative satire on college life in the 1980s, The Rules of Attraction. To the novel’s Burberry suit it is the Chanel broach, adding that much more significance to some of its most overarching themes of isolation, the relativity of perception and the quest for (or absence of, in many characters’ cases) an identity and purpose in such a world. In every way imaginable it adds to Ellis’ observation of these affluent young adults in their many adventures, wasting the excess of time they own on fruitless actions at the liberal arts college whose halls they haunt with a constant bottle of Becks in hand. Does the weighty impact of mass consumerism merely show itself in the 1980s, though? In many ways one can answer “no”. Decades before and after it hold representations of youth lost in the expectations their society deems prudent as a result of our total swallowing of the consumerist pill. Across eras, across regions, even across socio-economic lines, consumption rules and augments some of the symptoms of youth: rebellion, dissatisfaction, fear.
Baudrillard’s put-forth gathering of evidence in his “Objects” leads to the virtual conclusion which states that we each are only what the things in our possession, all signs of who we are and where we stand, make us to be (page 418). Through advertising we are fed images of these objects which signify “wealth” or “beauty”, leading us to purchase them in order to create an identity for ourselves. Our stuff is what we use to set ourselves apart; in doing so, we substitute purchases and consumption for the inherent qualities we possess (page 411). In my understanding of this assessment then, buying fosters a kind of apathy in terms of us as members of consumerist society venturing to gather ourselves, know ourselves. We desire to be different from our neighbor, so we (not all the time, for I do not want to generalize) buy a red sports car or purchase some other object which they don’t have. Through this process we feel satisfied for the moment and victorious, unique, apart from the masses. This, while another person buys the red sports car’s twin and feels the same way as a result of it.
Very acutely one sees the impact this embracing of mass consumerism has on the students at Ellis’ Camden College. Affluent young people without a need in sight participate in drugs, sex, and other wild activities without the hint of a purpose for doing so. Their disconnect from the world around them can be felt throughout the piece as three main characters, Sean, Lauren and Paul navigate their lives during the course of a term. Each one experiences things which would heavily impact any person, young or old. All of which they handle with a general response of, “Deal with it. Rock n’ roll,” phrased one way or another. Moments of emotion are juxtaposed with conversations and new situations revealing little feeling at all, namely in the form of their various sexual encounters. Their parents in all three cases are at differing levels of disconnect from them, supplying the means to live without the values to live by. After everything from the impending loss of a parent to abortion, each main character finally observes themselves by realizing, “I haven’t changed” (page 283). Already made by the stuff they own, including their sexuality and partners, whom they wish to own, these young people have no reason to find their place in the world, their purpose or identity. Not with mother and father having already made one for them in the status their possessions have fostered.
Camden’s students serve as a sometimes disturbing example of how consumerism can make a person lose or, in their case never know, themselves. It induces them to various attempts at rebellion, an instinctive response of youth to societal mores. But these rebellious acts prove to be fruitless and unsubstantial. The booze, the drugs, the sex, do nothing but alienate each character from one another and themselves. It numbs them when they need a goal to work towards and a passion to harbor. The product of consumerism’s eventual monotony is young people making no impact on their world and the wrong ones on themselves and others stuck in the same desert.
This method of coping with the state of mass society’s consumerist design is not unique to the 1980s or Camden College, however. It is not even unique to wealthy young people. For instance, the film “Dazed and Confused,” directed by Richard Linklater, follows average adolescents in their escapades over one evening, the end of the final day of school beginning summer. They drink, commit random acts of hazing upon lower classmen, have sexual encounters, for seemingly no other reason but to enjoy themselves and celebrate the end of the school year. However, upon closer examination, one can see the purpose behind such behavior. They fear what adulthood will presumably force upon them. This is particularly visible in one car scene towards the middle of the film in which three friends, Mike, Tony and Cynthia hold a conversation about their futures. College is the path which Tony and Cynthia speak optimistically about. Mike, however, raises the point that he might not want to go the typical route which society deems necessary for success, monetary and prestige-wise, one in the same. He does not want law school, rather, choices decided upon without fear backing up initiative for each.
Not only does this particular character serve as an example of youth fearing the ambiguity of a future resting on whether one can amass enough fortune to live a good life. One character known as Wooderson has been out of high school for years, yet he still befriends the high school kids and participates in their various escapades. He does not want to grow up. At one point he says, “The older you get, the more rules they are going to try and get you to follow. You just gotta keep livin’ man. L-I-V-I-N.” Rules, I think, which condition society towards adhering to the established consumerist mantle which we all must don in order to stay afloat when youth escapes us.
Despite their differing time periods and socio-economic status (since the kids from “Dazed and Confused” live in a visibly middle class Texas town), both cases of youth observation show them trying to resist. Without any real success, they disobey parents and societal rules by participating in various devious acts, raging against what they fear will soon shackle them. In that our entire society is based on consumerism, these young people will someday uphold the standard and re-affirm its existence. But for now, they do not want to. The characters in “Dazed and Confused” will have to enter this race for things once high school ends, left with no other choices but to work, go to college, or become another Wooderson. Ellis’ characters are in that much more deeply, their security set with no need to want for and, thus, nothing to work for with parents taking care of that for them. This one difference gives just a hint more purpose to the lives of Linklater’s brood than Ellis’ as a result. With these two time periods in mind, the 1970s and 1980s, we see the continuity of this epidemic of lost identity and how it spans over many generations because consumerism is just as continuous. The pathogen is contagious, I think, and could be for generations to come.