In a previous post, I had discussed the idea of wants and needs being blurred because of a profit-driven business. As I read through a number of blogs, I saw that many others had their own opinions on wants and needs. Peter believes that our inability to be satisfied with what we have forces us to constantly purchase new goods. Ashley feels that wants or needs are so intertwined that we don't think about things as wants or needs, but as urges that we have to satisfy. As I thought about it, I noticed that all three ideas had one thing in common: they all are affected by the idea of relative deprivation.
Relative deprivation is the idea where we believe we are being deprived of something we are entitled to. This tends to occur when we compare ourselves to those who are more advantaged. Businesses are profit-driven and benefit when they can create a need or want out of one of their goods. Some people buy it, some people don't. However, once someone buys it, another person of similar economic standing is going to compare their situations and realize that someone has something they don't have. When that realization hits, they feel deprived and are tempted to purchase the same or similar good just to keep up. Peter's idea fits in exactly with the concept. We are not able to be satisfied with what we have because we are constantly comparing ourselves to others. However, we always compare upwards, not downwards. "That person is driving a nice sedan while I'm just driving this crummy old Toyota." We feel deprived and aim to increase our own standing by trying to get an even nicer car. Ashley's ideas on wants and needs being so intertwined that we can't tell them apart is also explained by the idea of relative deprivation. The feeling of deprivation when compared to someone doing slightly better leaves us wanting more. However, do we really need more? It feels as if the only reason we want more is because we need more. Relative deprivation causes us to lose sight of what we truly need and what we want.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
This is a well-conceived response, and I like how you bring in the concept of "relative deprivation" as a way to reveal the difficult terms of the wants vs. needs debate. But why do you re-inscribe this duality at the end of your post? You state: "Relative deprivation causes us to lose sight of what we truly need and what we want." Isn't the point, rather, that relative deprivation exposes the fact that there are no 'true' needs and wants, and that these things are determined precisely on a slippery and shifting surface of consumer items? In other words, how do we use this concept to see out of this debate rather than land right back in its contested center?
Post a Comment