Each year, Escoles Freta Calella calls me to make a little Advertising, PR, SM and Audiovisuals Workshop. I like to change the topic every year and be able to give a youthful and dynamic approach to the topics I deal with. This year, being my 5th year, I have decided to propose a somewhat controversial topic: Digital Self-Esteem. This concept has been gaining momentum and has gradually made its way into popular consciousness, which I consider absolutely necessary.
In this talk, I decided to expose the vision of an author that I was passionate about when I was in my degree and that, being considered a madman in his time, more than one considers him a visionary of today: the mass sociologist Thorstein Veblen. This figure wrote a book in 1899 called "Theory of the Idle Class" and, very briefly, I would like to set out some of the precepts that Veblen demonstrates in this work just as I did in my talk:
- Human beings envy and seek to be envied by those around them.
- Ownership becomes a sign of power among our peers.
- Feelings are properties to be bought and boasted
- Not possessing equal or more than our equals implies failure and rejection.
- The earliest form of property was women and later slaves.
- There is an idle class and an idle class.
- It seeks to improve and grow under any circumstances.
- Consuming more than needed means power.
- Consumption occurs to satisfy users, not just to cover a need.
When I explained these concepts, more than one student was perplexed to learn that this was being said in 1899 by a person who didn't even have a telephone, didn't read the press much, and didn't even upload Stories. This is where the real debate and conflict begins: why are we able to think in such an ambitious and monstrous way?
Then the first answers came out "Marketing has put purchase ideas in our heads that we didn't have." "Politicians encourage us to polarize towards one side and then Marketing takes this information to sell us things" "Advertising gives us subliminal ideas through audiovisual productions and the influencers”…
None of these answers are wrong, we cannot say no to something so obvious and so persistent in our society. These oligarchic and "higher status" agents who try to convince them so that we carry out a beneficial action for their cause.
But are they the ones making the unnecessary purchase action? Are they the ones who feel a certain hatred or envy that fuels a particular action? Are they the ones who have a certain need to satisfy in order to obtain happiness or peace of mind? Are they the ones who truly make the decisions that do us more harm than good?
Then I let loose a question that at first seemed rhetorical, but which was forceful enough to make an angel pass through the youth: Do you think that, for example, Lamborghini would bring out more and more expensive and faster models if it didn't know that there are people willing to pay for them? The answer is no, no "dynastic" brand today takes any action because it does.
Brands, influencers and, more recently, political groups and even religions have listened carefully to what their audiences think, love, hate, desire and envy – and this information is extremely powerful. And even if it hurts us to admit it, there is nothing wrong with listening and proposing.
What is truly bad in this situation is our ability to be convinced from our own convictions. We seek the satisfaction of an envy, love, desire or anger that we do not need, but simply want to be satisfied to say that it has been satisfied. can you imagine how simple it would be to buy a piece of clothing if we didn't have to think about who will look good on us, who won't, who will admire us, who will laugh at us... We think this for the simple fact that everyone has the ability to impose a satisfaction above our real need: this is not done by a brand, it is done by the person who buys it.
The solution is not to end brands, but to end our own ambition as an animal race which obliges us to surpass our peers at all costs, even if this implies an imposition of ideals. Wars, fights, laundry rooms, insults and acts of envy or hatred are fuel and information for organizations and brands that benefit from them. But the origin of this is in no one but ourselves.
Could we live and let live alone with what we truly need? From the human act of sharing and reducing needs to the simplest concepts? I look forward to your answers in the comment box!
Leave a Reply