Took the VALS test this week, and found out that I am an Achiever/Innovator. This amazing, because the VALS says that Achievers "live conventional lives, are politically conservative, and respect authority over the status quo. They value consensus, predictability, and stability over risk, intimacy, and self-discovery." As a ridiculously liberal spoken-word poet, design student, and Portlander, who has once traveled the United States on a whim, living out of her car, I disagree. Maybe, though, the fact that I'd buy Arm & Hammer over Dr. Bronner's magic bar, puts me in with the soccer moms.
From here, I had a hard time investigating something that made me want to yell "Fraud" at the computer screen- no matter how "successful, take-charge person with a high self-esteem" it tried to tell me I was. The whole thing seems to work backwards under the idea that buyers choose products based on who they want to be- instead of looking at what products they buy; this test claims to ask if one "likes to move around a lot" in 16 different ways and derive whether you'd buy the red or blue pair of underwear without acknowledging that we are all different actors in in different environments.
If an individual is the sum of his behavior and environment, then how can you determine who he'll be when shopping at a store through an online test in his home? Maybe test-taking Leah is much more conservative than I thought! Thanks VALS!
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Home again
After hours and hours of field research and interviews, I am, again, digging through pounds of psychological studies: this time, more about the objects and the home and less about Baby-boomers' INSANE impact on the state of everything as they age over the next 30 years.
On "The Semiotics of Home Decor" by Joan Kron (from Home-Psych: The Social Psychology of Home and Decoration):
Kron wrote "If an object reflects a person accurately, it's an index of status. But symbols of status are not always good indices [of such]." She goes on to talk about how anyone with a lump sum of money can buy an object that someone of a higher class might own, and that "clusters of symbols are better than isolated ones." I read this, and wondered when I last bought something to indicate who I already think I am instead of who I'd like to be, and came-up blank. To me, the two represent the same thing: a desire to be the same type of person said buyer associates with a user/owner of said object- why else would the active lifestyle sportswear industry be so huge (does everyone that buys a sub-arctic Northface sweater already think of themselves as Summit climbers?)? If it can be said that we adapt to life through imitation, and then internalize our actions and vocabulary just long enough to find a new situation to adapt to, then how are our possessions any more than a physical expression of our hopes? Status... status comes when we are given an object by someone above us, and so, to me, because America lacks the rules bestowed upon nobles of 15th century Germany, object ownership is no longer granted to us by the king: we are allowed to buy that watch or gorgeous couch in the same way we could wear a Prada scarf without repercussion- but have that scarf given to us personally by an esteemed someone, and it becomes a symbol of how the world should see us.
Simply put, I can't see how an object we choose reflects more than who we want to be (unless we are being cheeky and saying "I am a person that wants to be _____"). Only an object given to us reflects how those people "should" see us... because it acts as a physical reminder that someone thinks of us. Status is merely wrapped up in the giving and becomes proportionally apparent when given by someone we admire- be that for talent, genius, or political success.
Beyond that, I found the rest of the piece a fascinating flurry of instances when we, as owners, cherish the things we own, and could understand why someone would feel detached from an area that lacked familiar objects- things to remind him of how he fits into the world.
On "The Semiotics of Home Decor" by Joan Kron (from Home-Psych: The Social Psychology of Home and Decoration):
Kron wrote "If an object reflects a person accurately, it's an index of status. But symbols of status are not always good indices [of such]." She goes on to talk about how anyone with a lump sum of money can buy an object that someone of a higher class might own, and that "clusters of symbols are better than isolated ones." I read this, and wondered when I last bought something to indicate who I already think I am instead of who I'd like to be, and came-up blank. To me, the two represent the same thing: a desire to be the same type of person said buyer associates with a user/owner of said object- why else would the active lifestyle sportswear industry be so huge (does everyone that buys a sub-arctic Northface sweater already think of themselves as Summit climbers?)? If it can be said that we adapt to life through imitation, and then internalize our actions and vocabulary just long enough to find a new situation to adapt to, then how are our possessions any more than a physical expression of our hopes? Status... status comes when we are given an object by someone above us, and so, to me, because America lacks the rules bestowed upon nobles of 15th century Germany, object ownership is no longer granted to us by the king: we are allowed to buy that watch or gorgeous couch in the same way we could wear a Prada scarf without repercussion- but have that scarf given to us personally by an esteemed someone, and it becomes a symbol of how the world should see us.
Simply put, I can't see how an object we choose reflects more than who we want to be (unless we are being cheeky and saying "I am a person that wants to be _____"). Only an object given to us reflects how those people "should" see us... because it acts as a physical reminder that someone thinks of us. Status is merely wrapped up in the giving and becomes proportionally apparent when given by someone we admire- be that for talent, genius, or political success.
Beyond that, I found the rest of the piece a fascinating flurry of instances when we, as owners, cherish the things we own, and could understand why someone would feel detached from an area that lacked familiar objects- things to remind him of how he fits into the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)