Death and Consumer Culture

Among the most veiled and emotionally charged of life’s experiences are those related to death. Given that poetry has long been recognized as an unparalleled means of expressing and understanding the most complex and emotional aspects of life (Sherry and Schouten, 2002), it is of little surprise that few poets regarded as the finest of all wordsmiths have not, since time immemorial, grappled with death.

Recently, within marketing and consumer research, poetry has slowly but progressively come to be recognized as a means by which to understand, express, celebrate, and/or confront that which defies scientific or other more “scholarly” explanation (Canniford, 2012; Wijland, 2011; Sherry and Schouten, 2002). This “poetic turn” has manifest itself most notably within the nascent realm of Consumer Culture Theory (CCT); mainly in poetry reading sessions held—with published chapbooks in hand—in concurrence with the annual CCT symposium. Death-related poetry penned by marketing and consumer researchers has there entered—albeit randomly—the CCT circuit (see, for example: Arnould, 2014; Steinfield, 2014; Gabel, 2013, 2010; Downey, 2011, 2010a, 2010b, 2010c).

This chapter represents the first formal, organized attempt to better understand death-related consumption experience and meaning via the creation and dissemination of original works of poetry. The chapter’s title reflects the broad, eclectic perspective of death and consumption herein pursued. We consider funerary and other—good, service, and ideological—product consumption activities and experiences transpiring in the context of death. We also embrace the notion that death often brutally consumes those dealing with it; a sort of “consumption of consumers by death.” In turn, as vividly expressed in several of the poems in this chapter, consumption acts or experiences and/or memories thereof may be instrumental in coping with “being consumed by death.”

Foreign Policy as Ethics: Toward a Re-Evaluation of Values

This article notes that while ethics is increasingly talked of in foreign policy, it remains a blind-spot for FPA. It argues that this must be rectified through a critical approach which conceptualises foreign policy as ethics. The first section examines how even constructivist approaches, which are highly attuned to the intersubjective sphere, still generally avoid dealing with morality. The second section looks at the possibilities and limits of one piece of constructivist theorizing that explores the translation of morality into foreign policy via ‘norms’. This demonstrates the problems that a constructivist account, with its tendency toward explanatory description without evaluation, will always face. The final section argues, through an examination of EU foreign policy (from 1999-2004) and its innovative use of ‘hospitality’, that FPA must critically reassess the value of the norms and principles by which foreign policy operates in order to suggest potentially more ethical modes of encounter.

Ethics, power and space: International hospitality beyond Derrida

This article argues for the importance of hospitality in discussions of international ethics, suggesting that, while Jacques Derrida’s thought on the concept ought to be central, we also need to go beyond it. In particular, Derrida’s focus on the threshold moment of sovereign decision has the effect of reinforcing International Relations’ focus on the state as the only ethical actor and space. In contrast, this article suggests that we think of hospitality as a spatial relation with affective dimensions and a practice that continues once the guest crosses the threshold of the home. Conceived as such, hospitality reveals a constitutive relation between ethics, power and space, which directs us to the way hospitality produces international spaces and manages them through various tactics seeking to contain the resistant guest. This argument is illustrated through an examination of perhaps the most urgent of contemporary international ethical spaces: the refugee camp.

Quantifying consumer portion control practices. A cross-sectional study

The use of portion control practices has rarely been quantified. The present study aimed to: (1) explore which portion control practices are actually used by the general population and their association with cognitive restraint, demographic background and general health interest (GHI), and (2) examine how the usage of portion control practices predicts the estimated consumption of an energy dense food (i.e. pizza). Twenty-two portion control practices were rated in terms of their frequency of use from 'never' to 'very often' by a representative sample of 1012 consumers from the island of Ireland. Three factors were extracted and named: measurement-strategy scale, eating-strategy scale, and purchasing-strategy scale. The eating-strategy scale score was the highest, while the measurement-strategy scale carried the lowest frequency score. For each strategy scale score, the strongest predictor was GHI, followed by gender. Having higher GHI and being female were independently associated with more frequent portion control. Both the eating-strategy scale score and the purchasing-strategy scale score were negatively associated with pizza portion size consumption estimates. In conclusion, while this study demonstrates that the reported use of portion control practices is low, the findings provide preliminary evidence for their validity. Further studies are needed to explore how portion control practices are used in different kinds of portion size decisions and what their contribution is to the intake of food over an extended period of time.

The Dark Side of Nudging: The Ethics, Political Economy, and Law of Libertarian Paternalism

Libertarian paternalism, as advanced by Cass Sunstein, is seriously flawed, but not primarily for the reasons that most commentators suggest. Libertarian paternalism and its attendant regulatory implications are too libertarian, not too paternalistic, and as a result are in considerable tension with ‘thick’ conceptions of human dignity. We make four arguments. The first is that there is no justification for a presumption in favor of nudging as a default regulatory strategy, as Sunstein asserts. It is ordinarily less effective than mandates; such mandates rarely offend personal autonomy; and the central reliance on cognitive failures in the nudging program is more likely to offend human dignity than the mandates it seeks to replace. Secondly, we argue that nudging as a regulatory strategy fits both overtly and covertly, often insidiously, into a more general libertarian program of political economy. Thirdly, while we are on the whole more concerned to reject the libertarian than the paternalistic elements of this philosophy, Sunstein’s work, both in Why Nudge?, and earlier, fails to appreciate how nudging may be manipulative if not designed with more care than he acknowledges. Lastly, because of these characteristics, nudging might even be subject to legal challenges that would give us the worst of all possible regulatory worlds: a weak regulatory intervention that is liable to be challenged in the courts by well-resourced interest groups. In such a scenario, and contrary to the ‘common sense’ ethos contended for in Why Nudge?, nudges might not even clear the excessively low bar of doing something rather than nothing. Those seeking to pursue progressive politics, under law, should reject nudging in favor of regulation that is more congruent with principles of legality, more transparent, more effective, more democratic, and allows us more fully to act as moral agents. Such a system may have a place for (some) nudging, but not one that departs significantly from how labeling, warnings and the like already function, and nothing that compares with Sunstein’s apparent ambitions for his new movement.

Branding strategies for high technology products: The effects of consumer and product innovativeness

Choice of an appropriate branding strategy is a critical determinant of new product success. Prior work on fast-moving-consumer-goods (FMCG) prescribes that new products carry new (vs. existing) brand names to appeal to earlier adopters - a critical target for new products. However, such a prescription may not be prudent for high-technology (HT) products, as they often involve considerably more consumer perceived risk than FMCG. By drawing on Dowling and Staelin's (1994) framework of perceived-risk handling, we propose that both earlier and later adopters will favor existing brands to cope with the elevated risk associated with an innovative HT product. Two studies - one conducted in an experimental setting and the other in a field setting - support the proposition that both earlier and later adopters respond more favorably to existing (vs. new) brands on innovative HT products.

Psychological determinants of consumer acceptance of personalised nutrition in 9 European countries

OBJECTIVE: To develop a model of the psychological factors which predict people's intention to adopt personalised nutrition. Potential determinants of adoption included perceived risk and benefit, perceived self-efficacy, internal locus of control and health commitment.

METHODS: A questionnaire, developed from exploratory study data and the existing theoretical literature, and including validated psychological scales was administered to N=9381 participants from 9 European countries (Germany, Greece, Ireland, Poland, Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands, the UK, and Norway).

RESULTS: Structural equation modelling indicated that the greater participants' perceived benefits to be associated with personalised nutrition, the more positive their attitudes were towards personalised nutrition, and the greater their intention to adopt it. Higher levels of nutrition self-efficacy were related to more positive attitudes towards, and a greater expressed intention to adopt, personalised nutrition. Other constructs positively impacting attitudes towards personalised nutrition included more positive perceptions of the efficacy of regulatory control to protect consumers (e.g. in relation to personal data protection), higher self-reported internal health locus of control, and health commitment. Although higher perceived risk had a negative relationship with attitude and an inverse relationship with perceived benefit, its effects on attitude and intention to adopt personalised nutrition was less influential than perceived benefit. The model was stable across the different European countries, suggesting that psychological factors determining adoption of personalised nutrition have generic applicability across different European countries.

CONCLUSION: The results suggest that transparent provision of information about potential benefits, and protection of consumers' personal data is important for adoption, delivery of public health benefits, and commercialisation of personalised nutrition.