The bonfire of the brands

This appeared in my inbox today

On 26.08.06, I am going to gather every branded possession of mine into a warehouse, douse them with petrol and burn the lot. Jacobson chairs, Christian Dior shirts, a Louis Vuitton bag; I'm too frightened to calculate the financial cost of this action, but I know it's a lot. Far more unsettling than the money is the emotional cost I'm going to suffer. You see, It's not simply a pile of expensive clothes and accessories going on the bonfire, Neil Boorman is being destroyed too.

Until recently, I thought I knew who Neil Boorman was. I felt sure how the outside world regarded me because I had spent a fair amount of time engineering an image. I found the best way to understand and articulate 'me' was through the owning and displaying of things made by brands. They provided a source of comfort, a reassurance of my own self worth, they project my identity to others around me.

Frustratingly, this attempt at branded self-identity has been accompanied with a numbed sense of dissatisfaction. Attempting to cure myself, I have sought comfort and reassurance by buying yet more
branded goods, treating myself 'because I'm worth it'. I now understand that this behavior only made matters worse. For all the time and money I have devoted to collecting these brands, these symbols of self, I have absolutely no idea who I am. For every new material extension of my character, I become more distant from the person than I really am.

The reality however is only just becoming clear; with every new emblem of identity I add to my collection, I lose a piece of myself to the brands. They cannot reciprocate the love I give. They cannot transport me to the places I'm promised exist. I am not, nor will I ever be remotely similar to the people that appear in their ads. It is a lie, a lie I have believed in for too long.

Like wow! I asked Neil if I could blog his email. For me what struck me was the whole issue around personal identity, and how we construct meaning in our post modern world. Neil obviously sees another future as to how he will construct his new identity.

It is worth quoting Soshana Zuboff here, from her book the Support Economy because there is a direct relation between what Neil says, and Soshana's insight

These individuals are seeking new consumption choices that can redefine commerce. The new individuals want to make a difference, they want to be heard, and each wants to matter. Their new political choices begin with an apparent dilemma for leaders. The new individuals are educated (and increasingly more so) opinionated, rights claiming and keen to act. They have concepts, ideals, and information. All of these characteristics ought to make them avid participants in the political process, but despite these credentials, the political participation of the "postmaterialists" is, by conventional measures, lower than of the modern generation.

In contrast, the values surveys of Ronald Inglehart indicate that the new postmaterialists demand true voice. Theirs is a psychological reformation that suggests some interesting parallels to the religious reformation of the sixteenth century. Today’s individual rejects organisational mediation seeking instead to have a direct impact upon matters that touch his or her life.

They shun traditional organisations in favour of unmediated relationship to the things they care about. The new individuals thus demand a high quality of direct participation and influence. They have skills to lead, confer and discuss, and they are not content to be good foot soldiers.

Young adults place a premium on the efficacy of small groups of people working together to effect change in tangible ways. And they showed strong preference for leadership "that emphasises the collective participation of many individuals over the strong leadership of the few."

This rejection of mediated influence also helps explain the growing interest in the concept of "direct democracy" as a natural evolution of representative democracy.

The new individuals seek true voice; direct participation, unmediated influence and identity based community because they are comfortable using their own experience as a basis for making judgements.

Bonfire of the brands

Also Neil clearly feels he has been mediated out of existence - his reaction is an extreme one, but I find it curiously compelling.

One thing though Neil, spare the Jacobsen chairs!

Comments

[Ari T]

Heart-rending stuff. Pass this on to Neil: get off your spoilt, resource-wasting ass, go to your nearest Haitian slum and *then* whine about having too much branded stuff. At least donate the items to a charity, for God's sake.

[Neil Boorman]

Hello
Thanks for posting the book on my site Alan... much appreciated.

As for the comment above, well this is a standard response from some people, and I understand why they have this knee-jerk reaction.

What I am trying to do with the project is raise awareness of the futility and wastefulness of modern branded consumerism. Me taking my stuff down to the local charity store might raise a few bucks for the local orphanage, but it isn't going top change a whole lot. Creating a public stunt that will hit the newspapers and feature on a TV documentary and be published in a book accross the world will.

Money is going to be donated to charity. And considering how much junk we throw away in the world each day, how much pollution we release into the atmosphere each day, my little bonfire is a drop in the ocean. It really is only a waste when you value the products higher than their practical worth. A supermarket shopping bag and a louis vuitton bag do the same job. Its just the aspirational and emotional value tied up with the LV brand (and the cheap leather) that make them more valuable.

If I was being less diplomatic I would also say that people like Ari T get a shock when they read about people that dissent from the status quo. It is an uncomfortable feeling when someone questions the lifetsyle you are leading, especially when we all work so hard to achieve that lifestyle. I had the same thing when I admitted to alcoholism. In identifying my problem, some people I knew who were drinking the same amounts took the admission as being a slant on their lifestyle. First they got angry. then they got holier than thou. Then they hurled abuse at me. Sound familiar?

Ah well. Alan, the Zuboff quotes are invaluable... many thanks for steering me in the right diraction. Fantastic blog sir, and keep up the good work.

[alan moore]

Dear Neil,

Congratulations on such a measured response. I think you make many valid points. I wonder outloud that though your actions are extreme, how will we value brands in the future? What role will they have in our lives as signifyers? If we move beyond visual representation, where does that take us?

I am thinking about, how people are generally spending more time being creative, creating content, uploading it downloading, sharing, mixing, mashing. 31% of all 14 to 31 year olds in the UK have their own blog or website. We are witnessing the rise of amatuerisation.

So what role the brands? Levis no longer stand as the icon for rebellion and freedom, Coca Cola no longer represents the American Dream, Designer brands overpriced.

Brands instead of saying be like me, should be saying how can I help you?

[Mike]

Yawn Boorman, once again certain subjects of the universe are aptly named... you were an attention seeking tool in your sad consumerism in the first place and yr motivations are no less sad or self-serving in your repudiation. Why would the World that encourages that behavior give a shit whether you renounce it or not...self-obsessed and sexxxy indeed. And trust me, behavior like yours has about as much shock value as a Britney Spears video.