A Discussion On Postmaterialism At A Modern

Day Campus Essay, Research Paper

The construct of postmaterialism was foremost proposed by Ronald Inglehart in the & # 8216 ; Silent Revolution & # 8217 ; ( 1977 ) . In this essay, I will foremost analyze what philistinism so postmaterialism are. I shall so discourse some of the unfavorable judgments of the theory. I will so analyze to what extent Essex University pupils are postmaterialist utilizing illustrations of pupil societies and so explicate why I feel that they are more materialist and offer some accounts of why this is so. In order to to the full understand what postmaterialism is, it seems necessary to foremost explicate what is meant by philistinism. Basically, this is an account of societal procedures by mentioning to physical or material entities. It focuses on economic sciences and material conditions of life in explicating how people think and act. Postmaterialism, defined by Inglehart as & # 8220 ; a infinite where diverse societal and rational inclinations converge and clang & # 8221 ; ; is the thought that society has moved on from this place and is no longer so concerned about stuff or physical conditions and topographic point greater accent on ( for illustration ) occupation satisfaction, ecological issues, human and carnal rights & # 8211 ; the quality of life. Materialism therefore trades with the conditions of life, and postmaterialism & # 8211 ; the quality of life. Postmaterialism rests on two hypotheses ; the first 1 is the scarceness hypothesis, & # 8220 ; one places greater subjective value on those things that are in comparatively short supply. & # 8221 ; Linked to this, is the thought that Individual needs can be put into a rank order ; and people become concerned with a demand one time they perceive that more of import 1s have been satisfied. The 2nd hypothesis is the socialization hypothesis, & # 8220 ; 1s basic values reflect the conditions that prevailed during 1s & # 8217 ; preadult years. & # 8221 ; Peoples attitudes are & # 8220 ; comparatively deep-seated, and early instilled as portion of 1s & # 8217 ; mentality of life. & # 8221 ; Whatever was happening during the clip of life identified by Inglehart as & # 8216 ; preadult & # 8217 ; affects an persons mentality, thoughts, and values in ulterior old ages. This impression, he footings & # 8216 ; formative security & # 8217 ; and he says the more secure an person is, the less likely they are to underscore materialist ends and be more postmaterialist as a consequence. Added to the two hypotheses is the belief that a coevals will hold a corporate scruples, faced with similar state of affairss a coevals will hold a similar grade of formative security. Value alteration is hence a generational procedure, with each coevals holding a distinguishable set of precedences to its predecessor. It besides means that a coevalss positions can be explained by events which could hold occurred during the formative period & # 8211 ; up to sixty or more old ages old to the clip analysed. Inglehart argues that both materialist and postmaterialist thoughts manifest themselves in an person, nevertheless, materialist demands such as personal security and wealth can take precedence and dissemble the postmaterial beliefs. Once the materialist ends have been fulfilled, postmaterialist ends become dominant. How shortly materialist purposes are achieved depends on the persons experience of & # 8216 ; formative security & # 8217 ; and to what grade they are needed before postmaterialist purposes can be sought. What Inglehart is basically reasoning is that precedences are being reordered due to alterations in societies wealth, they are by no agencies new precedences. The incentives of alteration to postmaterialism are security and economic development. Societies which have a high degree of wealth and particularly those who are the richest in a society are more likely to keep postmaterialist positions. & # 8220 ; The populaces of comparatively rich societies & # 8221 ; experience extended public assistance proviso, high degrees of instruction and intellectually stimulating businesss ; these in bend signifier subjective impressions about security and precedences about materialism/postmaterialism. Inglehart argues that coevalss born after the 2nd universe war topographic point less accent on materialist ends as a consequence of the deficiency of war or economic want ( i.e. high economic growing ) . As the new coevalss replace older 1s, the gradual displacement to postmaterialism of about 1 % per twelvemonth means that it will be held by over 50 % of the population by around the twelvemonth 2010. This means that in groups such as pupils at the University of Essex must hold comparatively high degrees of postmaterialism in order for the tendency to go on. There are a figure of effects for the growing of postmaterialism. As postmaterialist coevalss take up professions in concern, the civil service and political relations, an inevitable alteration in focal point in policy and mentality will happen. Having besides been good educated compared to the old coevalss, they are besides more able to reason and act upon dockets thereby worsening their impact. As postmaterialists move off from the station war docket, new political parties will emerge, facing the traditional parties and finally ruling the political docket, parliament and policy. Postmaterialism will take to a alteration in society and political relations and do much perturbation in the position quo whilst this occurs. Two chief unfavorable judgments can be made of Ingleharts thesis. First, his statement of & # 8216 ; higher order demands & # 8217 ; seems weak, it is untestable and equivocal as to how an person can prioritize positions which can belie each other. Ingleharts definition of postmaterialism is really obscure and can cover about anything and becomes meaningless. It needs to be better quantified, as he subsequently does, by stating postmaterialist ends are new, covering with new issues on a new docket characterised by individual issue groups. It inquiries & # 8220 ; traditional positions on work, authorization, traditional faith, sexual and societal norms & # 8221 ; and the outgrowth of & # 8220 ; women’s rightist, green and postmodern outlooks. & # 8221 ; Postmaterialism besides appears excessively simplistic, the alterations can non be to the full accounted for and is at best an estimate of what is happening. Society is much more dynamic, diverse and complex to be placed in a simple duality such as Ingleharts. Possibly a more complicated theory is needed to depict the evident displacement in the political positions identified. `The University of Essex has many pupil societies which are set up and run by pupils with a peculiar common involvement or position. These societies are highly diverse and cover about any involvement a pupil may hold. If it is taken that these societies are a just contemplation of pupils positions, some of these societies can be seen to be materialist or postmaterialist and the degree of engagement for each looked at. Other societies, such as those with a cultural or cultural involvement are more hard to specify as these tend to be set up by and for foreign pupils to back up themselves whilst in Britain, and so hard to characterize. The concluding grouping is those societies set up to provide for pupils in a peculiar grade strategy which once more can non be defined along Ingleharts duality. Society Membership No Society Membership No Labour 105 Gregorian 255 Conservative 20 Islamic 205 Lib democratic 20 Christian Union 38 Student Industrial Society ( SIS ) 85 Judaic ( J & A ; I ) 58 Socialistic Worker Student Society ( SWSS ) 20 Table 1: Materialist Societies and Membership Levels. 6/3/96. 1429 entire pupils. `Old, & # 8216 ; Conditions Of Life & # 8217 ; Societies. Sum: 806 ` ( 56 % ) ` Society Membership `No Society Membership `No Cohort ` % Green 24 Animal Rights 30 Pure Postmaterial Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Supporters ( LGB ) 43 HIV and AIDS Awareness 31 9 % With Club UK 136 Rock 120 Postmaterial Soul 25 Poetry 36 31 % Tendencies Music ( Musoc ) 39 Classical 47 Photography 41 Little Postmaterial Tendencies 5th Monarchists 51 4 % Table 2: Postmaterialist Societies and Membership Levels. 6/3/96. 1429 entire pupils. `New, Socially Aware, & # 8216 ; quality of Life & # 8217 ; Societies. Sum: 623 ` ( 44 % ) Harmonizing to Inglehart, University of Essex pupils should be preponderantly postmaterialist. They benefit from the post-war period of high degrees of instruction, public assistance province and small menace from war or poorness. However, tables 1 and 2 do non demo this, they show that the two groups are loosely equal in size, the materialists accounting for 56 % and the postmaterialists, 44 % . The traditional party groups such as Labour and the freshly formed societies stand foring Conservatives and Broad Democrats show that Essex pupils still empathise with the traditional political parties. The Student Industrial Society is concerned with stuff wealth, trying to do links with the local community and commercialism. the & # 8216 ; traditional & # 8217 ; or established faiths advocated by the Gregorian, Islamic, Christian brotherhood and Judaic societies shows the strength which still exists for them at Essex. The postmodern societies can be divided into three groups ; the first I shall term & # 8216 ; pure & # 8217 ; postmodern societies and are lightly shaded in table 2. These are easy defined as postmodern, and there is small ambiguity about them. The 2nd group are the clear group in table 2, these consist of groups with postmaterialist inclinations but it seems incorrect to label them every bit such as the are loosely unpolitical and have little to make with faith or civilization ; they are loosely related to avocations. They are besides non particularly new. the concluding class is the diagonally filled country in table 2 and relates specifically to the

5th Monarchists. This society does not fit into any of the above categories but needs including as a small number of them organise Action by Students for Kids (ASK) who raise money for creche facilities. They cannot be included as a ‘pure’ postmaterialist society as it is in reality an informal drinking club for a small clique of students and therefore not concerned with postmaterial goals. At first analysis, 56% of all students analysed belong to materialist societies, whereas 44% belong to postmaterialist ones, however, if only the ‘pure’ societies are examined, they are only 9% (128 students), a very small proportion. To refer back to Inglehart, who saw younger generations becoming more and more postmaterialist with each successive generation, the theory does not seem to hold for Essex. The question which now needs to be addressed is, “Why are University of Essex students more materialist than what Inglehart suggests?” An economic answer which would be proposed by Inglehart in this circumstance. He states that there is an inverse relationship between inflation and postmaterialism, as inflation rises, the level of postmaterialism falls. When this is put in context with his second hypothesis about formative security, he would argue that University students place a high level of importance on material goals due to experiences as a preadult. Scarbrough argues that on the face of it, there is an inverse correlation. However, upon further analysis, she argues that the relationship is spurious. She suggests that either the relationship is very complex or there is a missing variable leading to a misspecification. A combination of inflation, unemployment, changes in real gross domestic product (GDP), and growth would produce a less spurious correlation. However, such a complex model is difficult to analyse over time as definitions of each regularly change and are not easily comparable, for example, the many different definitions of unemployment used by the British Government in the 1980s and 90s. To explain the low level of postmaterialism amongst Essex students, an analysis of political events can be used in combination with the two hypotheses used by Inglehart to produce a basic explanation. If it is assumed that the majority of students at the University of Essex are between the ages of 18 and 24, we can look back over the last two decades as their preadult socialisation (the second hypothesis). A number of important issues can be recalled during this period which may explain the low level of security amongst present students (the first hypothesis) resulting in a materialist outlook. As detailed in Appendix 1, The most dominating issue over the last two decades is arguably the primeministership of Mrs Thatcher. She advocated materialist policies based on the ideology of the ‘free economy and the strong state’. The implementation of Thatcherite policies – the constant emphasis on inflation, privatisation and anti-Trades union, are materialist concerns. Postmaterialist goals such as green issues, human rights and animal rights were barely touched upon. These policies and their effects could be seen to have an effect on an individuals priorities in preadult years and lead them to be now more materialist. Other important issues over the last two decades include, global stagflation and the intervention of the IMF in 1976, the two recessions of the 1980s sandwiching the mid 1980s boom. The Falklands and Gulf wars, arguments about falling education standards in Britain, and the bombing campaigns of the Irish Republican army on mainland Britain. All these issues are mainly pessimistic and someone growing up in this time is likely to have a need for a high level of security before they become concerned with postmaterialist goals. If it is a whole generation who gain a form of collective conscience as Inglehart suggests, then this theory can explain the lower level of postmaterialism than would be expected by Inglehart. An individual therefore socialised with these events occurring is likely to be more materialist than predecessors as each one is likely to reduce overall confidence and lead to low level of formative security. With views on past events, attitudes to the present and future should now be discussed. Few students can now be certain of having paid employment on leaving university, when this is coupled with the many thousands of pounds of debt many face, the prospects for the future appear bleak which must lower their level of security and so make them more concerned about material issues. This can be seen to be reflected by the membership levels in materialist societies, which are higher than what Inglehart would suggest, and for what I have termed ‘pure’ postmaterialist societies, the membership is much lower. There a few problems with using the analysis of societies in this way which need to remembered when discussing them. The first is that societies are not mutually exclusive and students are free to join as many as they so wish. At this University, it is not possible to know how many students belong to two or more societies and whether they join similar groups (i.e. two postmaterialist or materialist groups) or two different groups. secondly, the membership levels for each society does not show the level of active membership – those who perhaps joined but are no longer interested in the society. Similarly, it does not account for students who hold a view but do not join a related society for other reasons. The analysis also rests on the assumption that membership levels are a fair reflection of the student population. It needs to be assumed that broadly, students with a particular interest will join the relevant society, remain fairly active in the society activities, and the society reflects the views of its members. Thirdly, the societies could be divided into different ways depending on the definition of postmaterialism. It has already been stated that the definition is diverse and vague and this leads to a problem in determining what societies are. Further difficulties arise in defining cultural and department societies which appear broadly not compatible with the theory. The definition could be changed to include these though or even to say that societies are a postmaterialist concept and so all societies are postmaterialist. This way of analysing societies appears more difficult to analyse and still does not eliminate the problems already highlighted. Despite these problems, it seems a fair and accurate way of characterising University of Essex students and able to draw conclusions from these. Inglehart in 1977 argued that there was an emerging postmaterialist society in industrialised countries which would grow in size with each successive generation. This new society would hold new goals and attitudes, and be more concerned about the quality of life – green issues, human rights and so on. It appears in 1996, postmaterialism is not as dominating as what Inglehart suggests. Amongst student society members, Postmaterialist members account for 44% of those studied, 9% of whom could only be considered as ‘pure’ postmaterialist. This is much lower than what Inglehart would suggest and points to a change in the ‘motivators of change’ – economic and political events in preadult years which affect the level of formative security and so the level of postmaterialist goals. The recent history of the United Kingdom, as shown in Appendix 1, does appear to show a case for a low level of formative security in students and this can be seen to be a main cause in the present low levels of postmaterialism at the University of Essex. Appendix 1. `Year Events leading to low levels of formative security. Economic events Formative Security events 1975 1976 IMF Called In ` 1977 Trades Union Unrest ` 1978 1979 Thatcher Elected ` Winter Of Discontent 1980 Unemployment Rises Rapidly. ` 1981 Inner City Riots – Brixton And Broadwater Farm 1982 Falklands War 1983 1984 Miners Strike ` Brighton Bombing 1985 YUPPIES ` 1986 Unemployment Reached 3.1m ` 1987 Inflation Rises Hungerford ` 1988 Recession Begins ` 1989 1990 Thatcher Removed `Maastricht Signed Poll Tax Riots `Gulf War 1991 South Shields And Oxford Riots ` 1992 ERM Collapse `Inflation Rises 1993 Grant Cuts Announced ` 1994 Back To Basics Campaign 1995 Nolan Committee 1996 Scott Report `Dunblane Bibliography. Gibbins, J.R. (ed). Contemporary Political Culture. `Sage Modern Politics Series. Vol 23. ECPR. Sage. London. 1989. Inglehart, R. Culture Shift. Princetown Univeristy Press. New Jersey. 1990. Inglehart, R. The Silent Revolution. Princetown Univeristy Press. New Jersey. 1977. Jones, B. et al. Politics UK. 2nd edition. Harvestor Wheatsheaf. `Hemel Hempsted. 1994. Kreuzer, M. New Politics: Just-Post-Materialism? The Case of the Austrian and Swiss Greens. West European Politics. Vol 13. Nov 1990. Poguntke, T. New Politics and Party Systems: The Emergence of a New Type of Party? West European Politics. Vol 10. 1987. Robertson, Dictionary of Politics. Penguin. St Ives. 1985. Scarbrough, E. Materialist-postmaterialist Value Orientations. in Van Deth & Scarbrough. The impact of Values. passim Van Deth, J.W. & Scarbrough, E. (eds) The impact of Values. `Oxford University Press. Oxford. 1995.