Analysis Of Michael Thompson's Stubbish Theory

Register to read the introduction… The core of his theory explains “how rubbish is both made and then unmade as some things lose and then gain value over time” (Taylor et al. 2009, p. 123). His theory is based on the idea that “some items are re-valued as they move from being transients to durables” (Taylor et al. 2009, p. 123). An obvious example can be an old grandparents’ watch. At the time of purchase they might have paid very little for it and over the years the watch could have gain a price as low as zero. However, if the watch remains in the family for some years being handled from one to another generation as a special gift, at the present times it would be classed as an antique and therefore worth considerable more than at the time of purchase.
Thompson provides silk-woven pictures called Stevengraphs to prove his theory. The Stevengraphs were made by Thomas Stevens and “these silkworks were modestly priced” (Taylor et al. 2009, p. 124) in the 1879 and “many being sold and bought as souvenirs” (Taylor et al. 2009, p. 124). Then during the 20th century they became “virtually unsaleable” (Taylor et al. 2009, p. 124). “By the 1960s and 1970s they were selling for considerable sums as collectors’ pieces” (Taylor et al. 2009, p. 124). This proves that “being rubbish is not necessarily a fixed property, but may be part of a process which involves the creation, destruction and remaking of value” (Taylor et al. 2009, p. 125). Another, significant factor of rubbish being potentially valuable is the energy production of disposed waste. Dr Longhurst states that we are “short of materials globally as well as short of energy globally. We’re now looking to waste as a real resource” (‘Making social lives’, Audio CD 1, track 2). This is an innovative idea which might save the waste from overfilling the landfill sites and efficiently reduce the amount of rubbish. Dr Longhurst also approves that “we can handle the materials in terms of recycling” (‘Making social lives’, Audio CD 1, track 2). This proves that it is very important activity to improve our environment and our responsibility to look for better future for next generations. The above evidence identifies the arguments for and against the view stating that ‘rubbish has no value’. …show more content…
“Rising affluence is a contributory factor to mass consumption” (Taylor et al. 2009, p. 136) which causes the high level of waste production. The waste is being thrown away which makes a huge impact on our environment and the condition of our lives along with fauna and flora. We should take a full responsibility for our acting today as “current generations are not bearing the full costs of their affluent lifestyle” (Taylor et al. 2009, p. 138). The consequences may be tragic unless the consumer society, we live in now, will take care of changing our bad habits. Word counting: 1299. References: Hinchliffe, S. (2009) “Consumer society? Shopping, consumption and social science” in Taylor, S., Hinchliffe, S., Clarke, J. and Bromley, S. “Making Social Lives”, Milton Keynes, The Open University Hinchliffe, S. (2009) “Rubbish society: affluence, waste and values” in Taylor, S., Hinchliffe, S., Clarke, J. and Bromley, S. “Making Social Lives”, Milton Keynes, The Open University “Rubbish society” (2009), “Making Social Lives” [Audio CD 1], Milton Keynes, The Open University