Affluenza, by John de Graaf, David Wann, and Thomas H. Naylor (Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, 2001)

affluenza, n. a painful, contagious, socially transmitted condition of overload, debt, anxiety, and waste resulting from the dogged pursuit of more

Many years ago I was walking through downtown Wayne, Pennsylvania with my father, and we stepped into the Encore bookstore. While browsing, I came upon The Plug-In Drug, Marie Winn’s indictment of television. It was a life-changing book.

When I learned about Affluenza, I was hoping for a similar experience. Although I was disappointed, it’s still worthwhile reading. There are some squirrelly parts, to be sure, but The Plug-In Drug had those, too, and they don’t need to detract from the basic message, which is basically one of Stop! Slow Down! Re-think! and Re-prioritize! because our consumption-driven lives are spiraling out of control. The book does a reasonable job of presenting the problems and some of the causes, though it is inexplicably silent on the social and personal consequences of the rise of the dual-income family and our dependence on daycare. Less surprising, but just as glaring, is the lack of any acknowledgement that the institution of school, itself, and not just commercialism allowed into the schools, breeds and trains unthinking consumers.

Where Affluenza really falls down, however, is in the area of practical application. I was hoping for inspirational stories of families who have succeeded even partially in reining in consumerism and returning sanity to their lives. There is a small amount of this, but the book’s focus tends to be on what the authors think individuals should pressure the government to do, rather than on personal changes.

It’s hard not to accuse the authors of naiveté in places. While I understand the motives behind their hope that one day organic food from sustainable agriculture will cost no more than factory farm products, in practice I know that changes must come carefully and slowly if people are not going to be badly hurt. Right now we have a system, as unhealthy and as unsustainable in the long run as it is, that produces a tremendous amount of inexpensive food. If our food is healthier, but more people starve, have we gained anything?

Although it was good to score well on the "Affluenza Self-Diagnosis Test," it was somewhat unsatisfactory. Somehow it reminded me of those articles that tell me I can gain much more time in my day by not watching television, or save tons of money by giving up cigarettes. What if I've already done that?

I’ve been more negative than I intended to be; it’s easy to use a review as a platform for bringing up points I’d like to discuss with a book’s author! Although Affluenza was disappointing, it covers a vitally important subject, and is perhaps a good beginning.

"One person I know calls what we're doing the 'self-deprivation movement,' but it's not," [Cecile Andrews] argues. "The way to fill up emptiness is not by denying ourselves something. It's by putting positive things in place of the negative things, by finding out what we really need, and that's community, creativity, passion in our lives, connection with nature. People help each other figure that out. They learn to meet their real needs instead of the false needs that advertisers create."
Posted by sursumcorda on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 at 1:31 pm | Edit
Permalink | Read 2264 times
Category Reviews: [first] [previous] [next] [newest]
Comments
Add comment

(Comments may be delayed by moderation.)