Collectivism and consumerism

We live in a collectivist society one in which individual decisions matter less than that of the family or broader community within which he or, especially she, belongs. The notion of what people will say is a common one, and apparently holds far more significance than what a person may want; it alters perceptions too about what is needed and what the priorities are within homes. This is especially true when the element of commercialism, a growing feature in our society, is gaining greater and greater weight, unbalancing the scales and apparently affecting good reason.
Let’s take a scenario. It is an imaginary one, but it is not unreal. In various forms it is played out in homes across the country. A family sits down to eat. The meal comprises ‘roti’, a giant lump of pickle and a small helping of cooked vegetables. The men and boys receive more than the girls, the mother eats the least. This meagre meal is eaten seated before a coloured television of reasonable size, the shrill ring from a smart phone or two owned by several members of the family interrupt it, and during a discussion held over the sound of the TV, the eldest daughter requests a new tablet. Her father and brother promise the 14-year-old one.
A nutritional assessment indicates the family eats too little, and often makes poor eating choices. Advertising has an impact over what they consume in the form of food or drink. The mother says they have too little to feed four children. But oddly, both she and her husband do not appear to see the irony of having smart phones in pockets, a coloured TV and DVD player on the shelf, tablets in schoolbags, store-bought carbonated beverages in the kitchen but not enough food to place before the family.
When asked directly about this, the question of collectivism comes in immediately. They ask: what would people say if we didn’t have a television for our children? How would the children manage without smart phones? How would they survive without their favourite soap operas on TV? What others think seems to have become more important even than simple survival. Image, keeping up with the Joneses and other ideas determine how people act and what they do.
Yes, the very poor, those who literally live several ranks below the poverty line, have no choice but to focus on getting some kind of food into homes. However, a vast sea of families that would classify as being poor appear to have become extremely confused about rationality and are being driven on purely by the fierce social expectations of our society which determine for so many precisely how lives are led. The financial and emotional pressures this places on families is yet another facet to the problem.
It is an issue that has not been adequately addressed. Families that could technically speaking at least afford to feed themselves at a reasonable level opt not to do so because other items top the list of what they believe they need. A new television in the neighbourhood is always the subject of much talk in impoverished localities. A good meal laid out for children every day is not. No one asks about this and as a result we have soaring rates of undernourishment. Yes, some of it is linked directly to poverty. But in other cases far more complicated factors come into play.
Lack of awareness, lack of real education and the severe pressure exerted by others all around play a huge role in determining how people act and what they do. They do this even though they sometimes realise it is detrimental to the interests of their children or themselves. And there is no doubting of course that underemployment, unemployment, very real urban poverty and lack of opportunity all add in to complicate a problem that has grown rapidly over the past few decades. According to figures from 2014, 131 million people in Pakistan out of a population of just over 180 million are mobile phone subscribers.
This is a remarkable figure, making Pakistan the eighth largest mobile phone using country in the world, and putting it at par with nations which are far more developed than it is. The mobile phone trend, it must be said, is not necessarily negative. It has helped people increase earning potential and of course communication. But the question does arise of whether a teenage school goer needs a smart phone more than a truly nutritious meal every day.
The entire issue is also connected to status and how we have come to create a society within which this has immense meaning. The high levels of stratification mean there is always a quest to match those in a tier above. This of course is perfectly justified. It should happen. But the problem is that education does not create mobility. Indeed, it sometimes stunts it with huge gaps existing between public sector schools, lower level private schools and elite institutions. This presents huge problems.
People aim then to acquire upward mobility through consumerism, by possessing the right clothes, the right sunglasses, the right haircuts. We cannot blame them for this. Our collective culture leaves only limited room for choice. But the direction in which this culture has pushed society is disturbing.
We need to create a sense of individual pride. The argument over whether individualist societies are better than collective ones is a long and convoluted one. It is not one to delve into at length. But there are obvious advantages and disadvantages. These need to be balanced out. We also need to create greater awareness and make a very deliberate effort to tilt things around so that what is really important rises to the top. Currently, this is not the case. Even where mobility occurs, as has begun to happen with more and more people acquiring education, the problems created by consumerism stand in the way.
Students from less privileged backgrounds entering prestigious or relatively prestigious institutions of higher learning as a result of their grades face enormous pressures to conform to the norms set by their classmates. This to an extent is true everywhere in the world. It is, however, exaggerated to an almost unacceptable point in ours. And of course we are very adept at picking up the little nuances, the little signs that give away precisely where a person stands in society and from which background he or she may come. For girls, the pressures are even greater with clothes, make up and so much else giving them away immediately.
The balance has been lost. Families no longer seem able to make decisions for their own good. If the trend continues it could assume more and more dangerous proportions. Social change is always difficult to engineer or intervene with. It lies beyond the task of political parties and most other groups to do so.
Educational institutions can play a part. So can other informal units, including mosques – which in theory at least bring people from all classes together. But all this will take a great deal of time. Until then, we will continue to see the purchase of luxury items being placed ahead of other far more essential needs which may include not only food but also medical care and other necessities.
The writer is a freelance columnist and former newspaper editor.
Email: kamilahyat@hotmail.com