An Anthropological Approach to Design and Consumerism.

In an attempt to deepen my knowledge of design and become the “T-shaped” designer that I aspire to become, I have set myself the task of looking into the psychological and anthropological theories behind design and consumerism.

There is no doubt that something in our mindset, either driven by our individual psychological need or by our culture and society, causes us as humans to desire new things, be it technology to help make everyday life easier, or some kind of beautification that satisfies our vanity.

How Does Psychology Relate To Design?

Looking at Abraham Maslow’s Motivational Hierarchy of Needs (1954), one must question how design can relate to psychology. Is the decision to design based on an inherent psychological need? Or for that matter does any career choice stem from a psychological need?

According to Maslow, the Man’s needs are ordered in a hierarchy, with the most basic biological and physiological needs being the most crucial, and with self actualising or transcendence needs being at the top (depending on the age of the model). He theorises that Man can only motivate himself to work on the higher needs once the most basic needs are met. The Author disagrees with this suggestion, but will come back to this point at another time.

http://www.businessballs.com/maslow.htm

Maslow states, “We may still often (if not always) expect that a new discontent and restlessness will soon develop, unless the individual is doing what he is fitted for. A musician must make music, an artist must paint, a poet must write, if he is to be ultimately happy. What a man can be, he must be. This need we may call self-actualization.”

Therefore, when the Designer is designing, supporters of Maslow’s theories would say that the designer is “Self Actualising”. However, whilst this theory could be applied to many career choices, it must also be remembered that a career is a source of income. Financial security or stability would come under Maslow’s “Safety Needs”, or could even be used to satisfy “Esteem Needs” on the basis that money can be utilised to purchase items of status, prestige and dominance.

Moreover, updated versions of Maslow’s Hierarchy include a higher tier, “Transcendence Needs”. This entails helping others to achieve their “Self Actualising Needs”, which, in theory the designer does. By providing a product that can help others, or to provide more basic needs is surely a form of transcendence.

A theory I agree with more in this respect is Clayton Alderfer’s “ERG theory” (1969) which uses the same principle needs as Maslow’s Hierarchy, but divides them into 3 levels, “Existence Needs”, “Relatedness Needs” and “Growth Needs”.

http://www.valuebasedmanagement.net/methods_alderfer_erg_theory.html

Alderfer suggests that these 3 groups of needs need not be satisfied in any order or hierarchy, and theorises that the needs not satisfied will lead to frustration and regression, to needs which are more easily available.

For instance, should “Growth Needs” not be easily available, the person will most likely move towards “Relatedness Needs”, and socialise more.

In addition to this, motivational needs may often change as age and circumstances do. For example, being introduced to parenthood is likely to change the person’s goals and aspirations in life.

How Does Psychology Relate To Consumerism?

In consumerism, when the consumer buys or consumes a product, they are also satisfying a need.

This can be any number of needs, for example, a consumer may buy a product based upon its attractiveness, as man has a bias towards items, or people, that we perceive to be more attractive. This would satisfy an “aesthetic need” in the finding of an object and appreciating its form, balance and beauty.

When a consumer buys a product which has implications or notions of grandeur or status attached to it, this consumer is satisfying an “esteem need”. These could be luxury products such as a Rolex, widely associated with wealth and dominance, or those which are widely perceived to be valuable within the society, for example the iPod. This object has a culture following it, and by buying into this culture, the consumer is satisfying “relatedness needs”.

Furthermore, some designs directly contribute towards satisfying the most basic of needs, the “biological and physiological needs”, such as food. Other designs may directly or indirectly influence a person’s satisfaction of the need for “self actualisation”.

Is this need to consume drilled into us through society, clever marketing and advertising, or just through nature?

Some would disagree with theories of psychological needs, arguing that some belief systems do not leave room for, or allow these to become a motivational part of life.

It is argued that although we have these psychological needs, that for many, spiritual need is the greatest, and comes first above all others. H. Les Brown, MA, CFCC, suggests that Maslow was wrong, in that his Hierarchy is upside down.

http://ezinearticles.com/?Maslow-Was-Wrong-(And-So-Was-I)&id=1218830

Brown states “When a human being is deprived of everything that makes life bearable - by tragedy, by disaster, or by inhumanity - all that he or she is left with is a spiritual connection to the Divine Spark within. Instead of the results that we might predict from looking at Maslow's hierarchy (that, deprived of physical sustenance, spirituality would be the last concern of the dying), in fact, experience teaches us that the opposite is true.”

Brown goes even further, to suggest that someone with large quantities of wealth and power, will still feel wanting, if there is a lack of spirituality. Therefore, people who are able to control their motivational needs through a higher, spiritual motivation are less likely to feel such strong desires for consumerism.

Cultural beliefs can also affect the patterns of consumption, as cultures differ greatly, often depending upon location and religion, with social acceptance of certain products or items dictated by these beliefs. Some cultural beliefs are traditional, passed down through generations, where the origin of these beliefs was, at the time, important to the people of the culture.

For example the nomadic Bedouin people did not see the need for chairs, since it was just another object to be carried, or in Japanese culture, where the furniture was limited due to the shortage of wood, and the frequency of earthquakes. In these cultures, sitting on the floor is socially acceptable, and has little reference to status.

However, European cultures are socially conditioned to see seating, such as chairs, as being a crucial component to any occupied space where people sit. To sit on the floor is not seen to be acceptable for many European adults. Moreover, some may even be offended by the suggestion.

This links directly to design and proves that a person’s different cultural beliefs and social conditioning are the driving forces of the needs that person may experience, either consciously or subconsciously. People in a society where chairs are in everyday use will actively seek to replace or upgrade the furniture they have, to keep up with the current trends in their culture.

Therefore, in an environment where people are conditioned to see consumerism as socially acceptable, the people of this culture may be more likely to partake in consumerism to satisfy their motivational needs, even to excess.

The level of exposure to consumerism, and advertising or promoting of products to be consumed, increases the desires to consume products to satisfy a need, for example, when an advert glorifies a product, it makes it appear to have qualities or notions that will benefit the user in some way, perhaps making them in more attractive to the opposite sex, or to make them appear more wealthy.

A case that demonstrates this is the Peugeot 407 advert, which suggests that no car other than this is manly any more, and that ownership of such a car will make you stand out to women as more of a man than the rest.

In most societies, despite belief systems, most people naturally seek acceptance, status and even dominance within the society in which they live, because their motivational needs require that they do so. Hannah Sweet, a psychology student at Kent University says “also worth considering is the idea that we are all social beings so have a need to belong and make impressions.”

We often use products, in order to apparently better ourselves, make positive impressions or make ourselves more appealing to others in our societies, to aid us in satisfying these needs for social acceptance, to secure relationships and belongingness with both friends and potential lovers, and to reach success in business or life.

Attractiveness Bias is an automatic response, and, according to Lidwell, in order to succeed in many societies and cultures, historically and at present people and products must be perceived to be attractive.

This bias stems from both biological and environmental factors, where the perception of beauty occurs when a person has features that represent positive factors, biologically, such as an appearance of good health and fertility and environmentally, “women who exaggerate socially acknowledged features of sexuality” and in men who “appear to possess wealth and power.” Lidwell 2003 "Universal Priciples Of Design"

A large part of our efforts to change how we are perceived by others is caused by a motivational need to satisfy “relatedness needs” and many products help us to achieve this. Consumerism directly affects the satisfaction of needs in some instances, and indirectly contributes towards the satisfying of other needs.

“If we consume more, we can come closer to achieving perfection, and fulfilling those deeper needs we have, like love.” George Darroch – Extract from an article about desire and consumption, capitalism and things advertising can promise, but rarely deliver.

http://contradiction.wordpress.com/2008/09/12/desire-and-consumption/

Darroch makes several interesting points, one being that it’s not sex that sells, but the promise of sex. Another being that by continuing to consume beyond our means, we chain ourselves to debt, and are forced to spend more time working and doing the things we dislike.

In the film “Fight Club” an interesting quote that agrees with this is “The things you own, end up owning you.” Chuck Palahniuk 1999.

Fight club is about how maniacal consumerism will not help you satisfy your desires in the long run, and that true freedom comes from severing ties to all the things you own. In the case of the film, by destroying the products consumed.

This brings me nicely to another point, are the things designed for our entertainment a form of escapism, or another form of advertising?

Things such as Television Programmes, Movies and Music are all designed by creative people for our entertainment. When we engage in these forms of entertainment are we not forgetting the world we live in and falling inside the fictitious realms depicted through these?

Are we satisfying a motivational need for entertainment, or to escape the feeling of wanting we experience in everyday life?

How often do we leave the cinema thinking “that was an awesome car.”? Or thinking about any other product for that matter? So often in film, at present, advertising is used to fund production. Meaning even in our efforts at escapism we cannot escape the capitalist environment now so common. The entertainment industry further glorifies and exposes us to the products we desire, or leads us to desire them by associating them with certain characters or figures within the fictional realm, or even the celebrities who are affiliated with entertainment.

The first product placement in a film occurred in “Ice Cold In Alex” featuring Carlsberg lager in 1955, and since it has become a growing trend, with some filmmakers shamelessly submitting to marketers, even to the point where the product placement devalues the creative content of the film.


This cannot be dismissed, however, as a completely bad aspect. Since many of the films we love would not be produced to the same level without the funding received via marketing companies. Companies are often willing to exchange large quantities of product and capital in order to get their branding associated with a certain type of image or film star.

What are we as Designers, as Companies and as Consumers doing about our consumption habits?

The current economic climate will have brought the realisation to many that excessive consumption is an endless cycle, and that it is wiser to limit consumption for things that we may want and focus on those we need.

Consumers, in general, are “tightening their belts”, as are companies and we as designers must be astute to this. Loss of capital has made many feel doubts about the future and what it may hold in store.

In order for businesses to survive, they must in some way maintain a flow of capital, a problem in a market where consumers are being more choosey in where they invest their money. Not only this, but business overheads can cause problems too, and if the cash flow is too tight it can be make or break for the company.

Many would be tempted to drop or lessen their marketing and communications efforts, but research suggests this would be a mistake. Instead, the application of clever marketing strategies should be priority, and as Jamie Bratslavsky, Product Coordinator for Stratogistics Inc, states “Design can also change the pathway of spendings by introducing "recession-friendly" alternatives (which can or may not be any different than if it were not during a recession) to the crisis, playing on consumer psychology by having them feel that they are getting more bang for their buck.”

The idea is for companies to maintain a brand image that is perceived to be affordable and valuable. This could be done by offering a range of more affordable products or services, or by creating good quality products that will be likely to outlast alternatives, competitors and trends.

An article from the New York Times, named “Design Loves a Recession” suggests that the future for designers during this period is to continue being creative, but to be less capitalist and more humanitarian in their approach, which this author personally agrees with.

“Will today’s designers rise to the occasion? ‘What designers do really well is work within constraints, work with what they have,’ said Paola Antonelli, senior curator of architecture and design at the Museum of Modern Art. ‘This might be the time when designers can really do their job, and do it in a humanistic spirit.’”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/04/weekinreview/04cannell.html

Leading designer Tom Dixon has recently released a new range for Milan furniture fair, themed with “Utility”, showing a drastic change in mentality, where previous products were seen to be more “throne – like”. It would seem that his sensibility has influenced his creativity in preparation for the hard times the future may hold until the economic downturn blows over.

For an example and comparison of Tom Dixon’s work, look to:

http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/cliff-kuang/design-innovation/tom-dixon-what-design-recession-looks

In the author’s opinion, the future will involve the design of products that people will perceive to be affordable, yet high quality, functional and which will still appeal aesthetically to the consumer. In order for designers to succeed throughout the current economic crisis we must design more sensibly, sustainably, and with the user in mind.

Function is of great importance, the product must function so efficiently that consumers will actually enjoy using it, and build an emotional relationship with it. We must not forget, however, the importance of form, and aesthetics must be treated like a function throughout designing the product, as the appearance plays a major part in its sale and relationship with the user.

If people form a psychological connection with a product, and it continues to satisfy their motivational needs regularly, it will likely be frequently used, and kept for a longer duration, thus combating excessive consumerism and the throw away culture so common at present.