While inadvertently listening to Oprah talking about recessions, what to worry about, what to prepare for, I overheard a conversation she was having with a caller who video-conferenced in. The fan was talking about how a car is transportation, and in an important way isn’t exactly an extension of oneself but still expresses one’s personality, or who one aspires to be, or – as I took it – something about its owner. A simple concept, but dead on. Thats what brands are all about.
Oprah’s response was met by an applauding studio audience: No it isn’t! A car is just a car.
I’m not shocked, Oprah’s audience and show is in many ways all about this idealistic view of what “real-life” is. That’s just fine, but the idea that a car is just a car ignores an important reality of how people interact with others around them, and how people form their identities. “Wouldn’t it be nice,” the position argues, “if we formed our identities around non-materialistic things.” And in a way, I think we do form much of our identities around other, hidden things.
But so much of our identity is focused on the things that are readily visible to the people around us. Think not just of cars, or of clothing; think of our religious ceremonies, of why race is so key to our idea of identity . Because we want people to notice, to see things about us that express who we really (think) we are.
And to say that the things in our lives are just things…well it totally ignores that fact.
Filed under: identity | Leave a Comment
Tags: brands, identity, materialism
No Responses Yet to “There’s a reason why we like what we call “things””