Tag: capitalism

An Analysis of “On Dumpster Diving”

Social and cultural differences have split the American upper and lower classes since the emergence of the Industrial Revolution (Dahrendorf). So ingrained is the class system into the American way of life (Warner, et al.) that it is the basis on which our capitalistic society is built (Marshall). An understanding of the harsh contrast and divide between the upper and lower classes can be used to reveal sentiments inherent in Lars Eighner’s essay “On Dumpster Diving.”

In his paper, Eighner’s depiction of dumpster diving goes far beyond the activity itself. By redefining the societal perceptions he’s associated with – due to his monetary standing – he addresses socially-constructed concepts regarding economic classes. In “On Dumpster Diving,” Eighner portrays himself as a member of the upper class because he alters the traditional definition of both rich and poor.

In several representations of a capitalist society, persons of lower class receive fewer resources and opportunities, while in contrast, those belonging to the upper class are associated with increased capital and privileges (Kendal). Christina Pazzanese, U.S. News and World Report contributor observes, the current economic situation has further increased Americans’ perception of societal differences: “The 2008 global economic meltdown that bailed out Wall Street financiers but left ordinary citizens to fend for themselves trained a spotlight on the unfairness of fiscal inequality” (Kendal). Authors at the Critical Media Project, too, observed the perceived social differences as they address the lower class: “ You may drive a 15 year-old car that needs repairs you can’t afford. You may have to take the bus everywhere. You may wear hand-me-down clothes.” (Class). Next addressing the upper class, they continue, “You may travel outside the country (and have done so multiple times). You eat out regularly, and when you go grocery shopping you try to buy organic food, even if it’s more expensive. You go to private schools and sleep-away camps.” (Class). In addition, this system is also defined by the social standards that accompany each socioeconomic class. Multiple depictions of the typical American class structure argue that a social stigma is present in society’s perception of the poor, and negative viewpoints towards this class are very prevalent (Williams). Conversely, they also suggest that wealth is revered by many and is sought after; it’s seen as a representation of success (Kendall). By traditional standards, Lars Eighner is a member of the lower class. For instance, so low were his funds, Eighner reveals, that “as my savings ran out…” he began to search dumpsters for essential items (2). In fact, not only was Eighner unable to buy items such as food and clothes, he became homeless a year afterward  (Eighner 1). Marked by a lack of money and luxury, Lars Eighner exemplifies poverty in the most traditional sense of the word. However, in a non-traditional sense, Eighner displays qualities that are characteristic of the upper class.

Throughout “On Dumpster Diving,” Eighner consistently reinforces the equivalence between what he does (dumpster diving) and a traditional job. He claims that “after ten years of government service… I find work that rewards initiative and effort refreshing.” (Eighner 12). The manner in which he contrasts his previous occupation and dumpster diving suggests that he means to compare two like things. By exemplifying this, he actually draws a parallel between the two, connecting them via their common denominator: that they are jobs. He reinforces this categorization, relaying that he’s “initiated several companions into the trade.” (Eighner 6). The term “trade” is most often used to refer to a skilled occupation, and Eighner’s use of the word reveals his perception of dumpster diving: he considers it an occupation as opposed to an activity. In addition, his portrayal of scavenged items suggests that their value transcends the typical. The writing indicates that the Eighner considers his finds more than just items, but rather he says they are payment for his work. Eighner came to the following conclusion:  he enjoys work that rewards exertion (12). Not only does this indicate his perception towards dumpster diving – that it is indeed work, it also reveals his view toward dumpster items: that he considers them compensation for his work. This finding is important to the interpretation of Eighner’s writing – that it defines him as wealthy, as the concepts of occupation and payment play large parts in the determination of class.

Once a job and income have been established, it’s essential to also shed light on the steady stream of resources available to both the author and the wealthy; only then can a legitimate connection be drawn between the two. Because the definition of the term “resources” is not impossibly rigid, it can refer to money, materials, or any other assets of similar nature. Therefore, what can be considered a resource is subjective and up to oneself to define. In his paper, Eighner adjusts the traditional understanding associated with wages or income, assigning it to dumpster finds. Moreover, because capitalism considers income a resource, dumpster finds can consequently be considered resources as well. In addition, others will presumably continue to throw out items, and as a result, Eigner will continue to have access to an influx of wealth. Traditional social understandings of the wealthy would conclude that they, too, receive a steady stream of assets. Therefore, another similarity between the author and the rich can be identified, one that draws parallels between the amount of resources available to both parties. In addition, Eighner sheds light on the shared perception of available items. He observes, having an abundance of resources has led to a disinterest in material objects: “I find my desire to grab for the gaudy bauble has been largely sated.” (Eighner 13). He continues, “I think this is an attitude I share with the very wealthy – we both know there is plenty more where what we have come from.” (Eighner 13). His remark shows a recognition of the consistent flow of income he’s presented with, yet realizes that no individual item or resource should hold great value, as many more will become available. He also identifies the resemblance this sentiment holds to that of the upper class.

A traditional understanding of capitalist societies would suggest that they are populated with strict divisions between socioeconomic groups, and further segregated by the social constructions that define societal perceptions of each class (Marshall). In his paper “On Dumpster Diving,” Lars Eighner seeks to address the rigidity of the class system by perpetuating an altered definition of the makings of the upper class. His portrayal of his lifestyle reflects a capitalistic view of an otherwise un-capitalistic activity: dumpster diving. By categorizing dumpster diving as an occupation and his finds as resources, he expresses his idea of work using the capitalistic model. Additionally, his consideration of his great wealth of resources, as well as the similarities he draws between his life and that of the wealthy, suggest an assumed equivalence between himself and the upper class. In reality, Eighner’s depiction of life on the street can actually be considered an attempt to redefine the social standards, perceptions, and stigmas related to the class system, intended to redefine what it means to be rich.

Sources Cited

Dahrendorf, Ralf. Class and Class Conflict. Vol. 88. Stanford: Stanford university press, 1959.

Warner, W. Lloyd, Marchia Meeker, and Kenneth Eells. “Social class in America.” New York (1949).

Marshall, Thomas H. Citizenship and social class. Vol. 11. Cambridge, 1950.

Kendall, Diana Elizabeth. Framing class: Media representations of wealth and poverty in America. Rowman & Littlefield, 2011.

Pazzanese, Christina. The Rich and the Rest. U.S. News, 9 Feb. 2016, 6:00 am, http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2016-02-09/the-costs-of-inequality-the-rich-and-the-rest.

“Class | The Critical Media Project.” Critical Media Project, http://www.criticalmediaproject.org/cml/topicbackground/class/.

Williams, Wendy R. “Struggling with Poverty: Implications for Theory and Policy of Increasing Research on Social Class‐Based Stigma.” Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy 9.1 (2009): 37-56.

A Keyhole Analysis of You’ve Got Mail

You’ve Got Mail portrays a story in which a small, family owned bookstore is run out of business by Fox Books, a large superstore intent on creating a profit. Its business goals include lowering prices to bring in customers, which drives business away from local stores in the process. The film addresses concepts and themes of morality, driving forces, manipulation, and personal relationships in business contexts. You’ve Got Mail suggests that Fox Books is driven by impersonal and immoral motivations which have negative effects, because their only concern is generating profits.

This essay examines the film You’ve Got Mail through the lens of “The Walmart You Don’t Know”, a paper that analyzes the impact of Walmart, a large chain store, on small businesses. Throughout the paper, the inner-workings of the relationships between Walmart and smaller businesses, as defined by “The Walmart You Don’t Know”, will be investigated in relation to You’ve Got Mail. Furthermore, the paper seeks to draw parallels between the behavior of both Walmart and Fox Books, and additionally compares  The Shop Around the Corner to Walmart’s competitors by examining the impact that large discount stores have had on their business. The writing will also examine Fox Book’s business practices and the motivations that dictate them. Finally, it will describe the negative impacts brought upon by Fox Books, as well as the immoral nature of their actions.

Fundamental to an analysis of You’ve Got Mail is an understanding of the goals and motivations driving Fox Books Superstores and their discount prices. The film seeks to answer the question: Is Fox Books’ practice of selling products at reduced prices designed to bring deals to their customers, or to steal business from competitors? Similar to the paradigm laid out in the work “The Walmart You Don’t Know”, You’ve Got Mail reflects a dynamic in which a large store seeks to monopolize the market by lowering prices and thus driving competitors out of business. This dynamic is consistently reinforced throughout the film. For instance, so intent on monopolization is Fox Books that employees remark,

Kevin: [referring to the neighbors] They’re gonna hate us. Soon as they hear, they’re gonna be lining up…

Joe, Kevin: to picket the big bad chain store…

Kevin: that’s out to destroy…

Joe: everything they hold dear (You’ve Got Mail).

Although this quote contains some inflated language, the core message still remains true: Fox Books intends to disrupt the regional book market by taking business away from small, local bookstores. Furthermore, Fox Books executives display an outward sense of joy towards eliminating the competition:

Joe: I have a very sad announcement to make. City Books on 23rd Street is going under.

(Nelson, Schuyler, and Joe high-five each other.)

Nelson: Another independent bookstore bites the dust (You’ve Got Mail).

The company’s fixation with obstructing the business of their competitors supports the conclusion that its intentions are to win over the market, and its low-priced products are a result of a business decision intended to increase sales.

In addition, determining Fox Books’ motives behind their low prices requires an analysis of their attitude towards customers, one that paints a portrait of disinterest and disfavor. In fact, Fox Books is so insensitive towards their customers, that Nelson Fox remarks:

Nelson: Perfect. Keep those West-Side liberal nuts, pseudo-intellectuals…

Joe: Readers, dad. They’re called readers.

Nelson: Don’t do that, son. Don’t romanticize them (You’ve Got Mail).

Nelson’s commentary is one display in a pattern of blatant disregard towards the interests of customers that is indicative of the company’s stance. The film’s portrayal of Fox Books shows a large company entirely engaged in creating profit, and nothing more.  With this portrayal comes the idea that Fox books is interested in winning over customers, an act that will increase their sales and begin a market takeover. Joe Fox reflects on the company’s intent to bring in new business: “We are going to seduce them…Because we’re going to sell them cheap books and legal addictive stimulants” (You’ve Got Mail). Such an attitude is not demonstrative of a company that values its customers. In fact, it demonstrates the opposite. Such a remark greatly alienates customers and strips them of their human qualities. Consequently, providing consumers with quality deals cannot be considered a goal of Fox Books, nor can it be attributed as the reason behind their discounted products. Rather, the reason behind their cheap books, as indicated by the film, is the stores desire to take over the market via high sales of cheaper products.

You’ve Got Mail, in addition to portraying business dynamics, also takes a close look at the social aspects of the two stores. Throughout the film, a concept associated with The Shop Around the Corner is the idea of close personal connections between the employees and customers – which begs the question: Do the special relationships between small bookstores and their customers override the cost benefit offered by big bookstores? In addressing this, Kathleen Kelly, owner of The Shop Around the Corner, reveals the non-monetary benefits that small bookstores offer: “[referring to her mother] It wasn’t that she was selling books, it was that she was helping people become whoever they were going to turn out to be” (You’ve Got Mail). She elaborates, “That is why we won’t go under. Our customers are loyal” (You’ve Got Mail). The film suggests that Kathleen’s store is able to provide a personal experience to consumers that is unmatched by big box stores.

Despite the benefit provided by small businesses, some customers appreciate what large bookstores bring to the table. In the months following Fox Books’ arrival, the Shop Around the Corner steadily made less money. It eventually had to close its doors. By including this plot point, the film suggests that some consumers value low prices more than personal service, hence the influx of business that Fox Books received. This desire for cheap products is what caused the rise of Fox Books and the downfall of The Shop Around the Corner. This isn’t to say that the market for small bookstores and personal service has disappeared; it hasn’t. However, the film does communicate that such a market is outnumbered by proponents of low-cost books. This question cannot be addressed nor answered through the use of dichotomized language that seeks to categorize responses as either yes or no. Instead, it can be answered through thoughtful consideration of the intricate and dynamic world that the film presents, a world in which each customer holds their own set of values. You’ve Got Mail doesn’t suggest that the close relationships between small bookstores and their customers are unequivocally more valuable than low prices, just as it doesn’t suggest the opposite. However, it does indicate that some customers value prices, while others value connections. But in the end, there aren’t enough customers interested in personal service to sustain the model of the local bookstore while the large store exists.

When examining You’ve Got Mail, the potential impacts and ethics of Fox Books’ business tactics must be examined in order to develop a whole understanding of the film. Therefore, the question must be asked: how do Fox Books’ low prices affect smaller bookstores as well as the local book market, and is the power that they wield fair? Much of the film addresses the negative impacts that Fox Books’ presence in the neighborhood had on The Shop Around the Corner. Because of the superstore’s policy of selling cheap books, waves of new customers were drawn to the store, some of which were previously customers of Kathleen’s shop. This new dynamic resulted in Kathleen producing significantly lower profits, which eventually caused the store to close down, as it was no longer sustainable. This can be solely attributed to Fox Books and the competition they present. Furthermore, Fox Books is an extremely large conglomerate which offers discounts that other businesses can’t afford to give. Consequently, all local bookstores near any of Fox Books’ locations would surely feel the same negative impacts that The Shop Around the Corner did. In essence, Fox Books has the power to dictate local book markets as it can put their competitors out of business. Moreover, eliminating competitors results in the superstore growing even larger. Just as “The Walmart You Don’t Know” describes a large chain store that exerts extreme power over the market, Fox Books has power to command the book business in much the same way.

In addition, the ethical aspect of Fox Books’ takeover must also be considered. You’ve Got Mail looks to associate a negative connotation with the store’s power, as it hints at the unethical nature of their actions. Frank Navasky depicts the destructive nature of large superstores: “[referring to Fox Books] The enemy of the mid-list novel, the destroyer of City Books” (You’ve Got Mail). This kind of condemning language is frequent throughout the film.  He adds, “Save the Shop Around the Corner and you will save your soul” (You’ve Got Mail). Taken directly from Frank’s attack article aimed at swaying public opinion against Fox Books and raising support for Kathleen’s store, this quote exemplifies the vilified nature of Fox Books that the film attempts to convey. Frank’s writing regarding Fox Books clearly imparts a perception of the store that defines their business dealings as immoral. Although Frank’s stance on the superstore may be considered extreme compared to his peers, the critics of Fox Books are all united under one commonality: they believe the store has intentionally negative impacts on its competitors and the market, and is thus unethical. By portraying Fox Books in a negative light, the story pushes the narrative that the store and their actions are immoral and wholly unfair.

The film additionally portrays the personal aspect of The Shop Around the Corner as they’re being put out of business, attempting to convey how the store and its workers feel, and answer the question: How do small bookstores feel when they’re being attacked by large chain stores? By detailing the emotional reaction associated with Fox Books’ manipulation, the movie displays the large range of emotions that the employees experience, fluctuating from optimistic to discouraged. As Fox Books’ arrival to the neighborhood is announced, Kathleen remarks, “It’s a good development. You know how in the flower district there are all those shops, so you can find whatever you want? This is going to be the book district. If they don’t have it, we do. And vise versa” (You’ve Got Mail). This reaction characterizes the immediate reception of the new store, a sentiment that contains no aspect of negative thoughts or expectations. However, as Fox Books begins to establish its dominance over the area, Kathleen and her employees’ feelings towards the superstore soon turn sour, in part enabled by Kathleen’s boyfriend, Frank, and his hyperbolic speech in regards to the store. During this stage of the film, the general attitude towards Fox Books is illustrated by resolve and animosity. Frank reflects on his steadfast position: “Kathleen, you are a lone reed… standing tall, waving boldly in the corrupt sands of commerce” (You’ve Got Mail). Yet, as The Shop Around the Corner is forced to close, this attitude morphs into one of sadness. Kathleen reveals that “I’m heartbroken. I feel as if a part of me has died” (You’ve Got Mail). This signifies that the oppositional spirit, which not only motivated the store workers, but influenced a strongly worded article attacking Fox Books, had left Kathleen. In a sense, the story implies that large businesses like Fox Books suck the livelihood and tenacious spirit out of the small bookstores that they compete with.

You’ve Got Mail, although often described as a romantic comedy, explores complex themes that provide the film with a deeper story. It’s portrayal of Fox Books produces a negative criticism of large, profit-seeking conglomerates. The story also examines the effects that such stores have on local business and the qualitative value that small stores offer, all under the guise of a lighthearted and quirky comedy. In doing so, the film suggests that Fox Books conducts business in an entirely impersonal and unethical way, resulting in a multitude of unfavorable consequences.