In response to Seth Godin’s proposal that bloggers blog too much, Umair Haque laments Americans fixation on usefulness. Then he takes aim at simplistic applications of economics:
It’s the naive culture of the market taken to an absurd extreme: the old economists’ notion of utility. By itself, utility is deeply insightful. It lets us understand decision-making and the microstructure of value creation in powerful ways.
But it’s no basis for a society, or a culture. The useful, too often, is the banal. Strip-malls, freeways, suburbs, fast food, sitcoms - all these things are useful; but they’re also deeply banal.
But utility, to an economist, isn’t simply usefulness by another name. In everyday use, “utility” implies mere usefulness, but in economics the word is usually deployed more broadly and abstractly. If something’s banal, it doesn’t have as much utility to someone like Umair, who hates the banal. Conversely, if something is well-designed, it has more utility. Well-designed products often command a premium over poorly-designed ones. Goods that seem minimally useful like original art or fine wine have great utility for some people, depending on their personal preferences and their past experiences.
The banal is the trite and overused, the repeated: identical houses distributed in cul-de-sacs across suburban landscapes, art prints from Crate & Barrel that you and all your neighbors have seen in the catalog, spicy chicken sandwiches deep-fried and served with tired lettuce at one or another fast food place.
How did we get to a place where the banal has crowded out the delightful, the unique, the innovative: the evidence of culture? Through our tremendous economic success. Three hundred years ago, today’s Loudoun County, Virginia McMansion wouldn’t have been banal; it would have been the height of luxury and comfort. If a mother who lived in Europe in the Middle Ages could have gotten a fast, cheap, uninfected dinner for her family at a restaurant, it wouldn’t have been banal, it would have been a miracle, possibly a very tasty one. The printing press has made art available to anyone who wants it, but take a modern-day Crate & Barrel abstract print back in time and it wouldn’t seem trite, though it might be considered ugly. So much seems banal to us because we have so much.
Do “strip malls and discounters kill the social and the cultural dead” as Umair suggests or do they just bring consumer comforts to everyone, changing our definitions of what’s trash and what’s treasure by making so much available to so many? Don’t Target and Trader Joe’s bring good design and good food to many people, while being tremendously useful to family shoppers? Our consumer culture and markets catering to it are not destroying culture or society.
Umair says “innovation is becoming both the single reason for firms in Europe and the US to exist; and why innovation seems, today, more difficult, confusing, and costly than ever.” Yes, innovation seems today more difficult, confusing, and costly. Perhaps that’s because we’ve achieved all the easy improvements in our hedonic satisfaction. We have clean water, ample food supplies, modern health care, on-demand entertainment, information everywhere, and houses like palaces. We’ve climbed to a point on the utility curve where squeezing out a little bit more is incredibly expensive. When everything seems banal, you need something that shocks or delights or otherwise shakes you out of your jaded consumer rut.
I wrote about the economics of entrepreneurialism yesterday, and in so doing, I explored the idea that the next wave of innovation in Web technology might come from addressing social problems rather than focusing on making us, the most fortunate among the world’s fortunate, ever more satisfied. For example, might Web technology help seniors maintain cognitive function and social support, two of the most important determinants of functioning in old age? Could online health advisors provide a substitute for in-person examination to people living in remote areas? Might the Web be used to communicate important public safety announcements if bird flu becomes epidemic? The fact that what our markets provide us seems increasingly banal doesn’t mean that the markets have failed, but that they have succeeded. How can we leverage the great power of markets to solve the problems of people who need culture much less than they need more basic support for a healthy and happy life?
2 Comments
Anne
I think it is because we tend to ask how can we be more productive.
Some human activities are not productive of themselves (like reading, taking a walk, watching the river flow, learning how to breathe, yoga). They do tend to improve our ‘quality’ of life though.
When I thought of these different approaches, it made me look at the way I should offer my concierges services in a different light.
Serge
Biz Site:
http://www.njconcierges.com
Blog:
http://sergetheconcierge.typepad.com
i recently got into a similar debate with a friend of mine, who (even though she has not read any) decried all blogs, and actually equated them with a general moral decline, and falling of the values of “patience and perseverance” for “real” writing, and “real” relationships. (yes, i took her out–she’s not normally that preachy, though). my main argument with her, and with all that “blog” rhetoric, is that the blog is merely a medium. it’s the context that matters (or market, to use your term). of course, in the contexts you mention, blogs can make a difference–or networking technologies can. i have actually worked with some grass roots organizations in africa on how to harness the internet for change. i get the typical “how can the internet change anything if they don;t have food and water?” argument. valid, but, well–despite what you might believe, africa is very networked in certain contexts. i.e. the NGOS and other orgs all have access, and can share resources, information, post downloadable materials for community-based field work. (posters, worksheets, literacy materials).
when ever people decry “blogs” or “television” I say, it’s a bit like moaning about the printing press.