Millions of people have watched “The Story of Stuff.” But not everyone agrees that it’s a perfect primer on conscious consumerism.
Photo: Yoshimai
Maybe you’re one of the millions of people who’s watched “The Story of Stuff.”
If you’re not, then here’s the quick overview: “The Story of Stuff” is a video made by Annie Leonard, an environmental activist and former Greenpeace employee who is deeply concerned about mass consumer culture and its effects on the environment.
Leonard put the video online in late 2007 and it became what the New York Times recently called “a sleeper hit.” Though it’s free online (both on The Story of Stuff website and on YouTube), thousands of churches and schools have ordered their own copies so they can teach their members about the ways our purchases ultimately impact the world we live in.
“The Story of Stuff” has been praised because it’s simple without being insulting, informative without being dry and overly didactic. It conveys a message without being painfully preachy. And it’s stimulated conversation online and off, encouraging people to share ideas about how they can take Leonard’s message and make it real in their own lives:
But not everyone is as enthusiastic about “The Story of Stuff.” One parent in the United States, annoyed that his child had been exposed to the video at school, argued that “The Story of Stuff” was just anticapitalist propaganda. In his complaint to the local school board, he griped, “There was not one positive thing about capitalism in the whole thing.”
The school board agreed, ruling that showing the video violated school policies.
And this guy’s by no means an anomaly.
A quick scan of the comment thread on “The Story of Stuff’s” YouTube account shows that plenty of folks have confused Leonard’s message of conscious consumerism with communism.
“Would someone tell this stupid commie #*&$% about economies of scale.” wrote one commenter.
Another: “Jesus enviros and their lackiers [sic] are troglodytes.”
That’s good for a laugh, maybe, but it’s too bad that some viewers (we’ll assume they did watch the video, right?) have blown “The Story of Stuff” out of proportion and find its call to be more conscious about our purchasing patterns a threat to capitalism.
About the Author
More By This Author
- Female indigenous wrestler challenges barriers in Bolivia (3 comments)
- Photo Essay: The Coolest Tree Houses in the World (15 comments)
- 19 Reasons to Feel Hopeful about the World (7 comments)
Related Posts
14 Comments... join the discussion!
-
-
Thanks for this Julie. It’s quite obvious that capitalism, as we currently know it, has failed (it’s as obvious as climate change…and that’s obvious, right?).
Off to watch the vid now…will return with my thoughts!
↵ -
Carlo-
I should mention that video is a shorter clip from the longer 20 minute piece. You can watch the full version on thestoryofstuff.com
↵ -
I saw this video yesterday and my husband and I, both, shared it with the twitter world. i think a lot of people have blinders on about planet earth and what’s happening to it, and to our children;s future!
Hopefully, through twitter and other communication methods, we can continue to pass on the message about the importance of caring the environment, living green, taking small steps!!
@gotpassport
@bhagnow
@jackventures↵ -
I think that the minimization of consuming is great, though I also think that it could help capitalism as a whole. Consider this: if you own less, you have more money to spend on what you DO buy, which means you will probably invest that money in better all around products. This will stimulate the growth of high-quality products (as opposed to the current race-to-the-bottom mentality in most industries), and will end up making these products even cheaper due to the economy of scale.
I’m looking forward to more people embracing such a lifestyle, because the more people that get on board, the better off everyone (and capitalism) will be!
↵ -
Colin-
Fantastic insight; thanks for sharing!
↵ -
Yeah, great insight Colin. Fine craftsmanship makes a comeback!
↵ -
OR…we work less, therefore make less money, but have more free time to do things we really enjoy (and don’t say shopping!). Less work for us means more work for others. The less we buy, the less money we need, the less work required. And everybody wins! Yay!
↵ -
I just watched the video, and then I started to watch the critique of the video, but I couldn’t stand it anymore. Much of what I saw was him debating the figures. Fine, figures are always open for interpretation. One side or the other is always manipulating figures.
But the overall message is right on, and the people that aren’t getting on board are just ignorant. Either by education, or by choice and they just don’t want to change (but I guess that’s where ignorance changes to stupidity).
Everything we do has the goal of growth. RIght now they’re dredging up Port Philip Bay here in Melbourne, channel-deepening. Why? So we can get bigger ships in, so they can bring more goods in. It’s all very sick.
↵ -
This video is so rediculous, the whole reason any body, including all of you posters here have access to things like the internet is through capitalism. People like to buy things, people want things, people generally need things they don’t have and in order to get them, they can trade the things they have for other things they want/need. Liked medicine, water, food, clothing…. Its called economics 101.
↵ -
Josef Goebbels would have been proud of this piece of crap video. I can’t believe school districts actually use this and take it seriously! No wonder our public schools are a disaster.
↵ -
This video is an injustice to show to student’s all across our country. I teach Economics at the High School level and this video is a stretch at best. In fact, most of what she talks about is a distortion of the truth. Shame on those who show this video as fact when it is nothing more then fringe left green rhetoric.
I am working to have it banned in my district!
↵ -
Jonas-
Thanks for your comment. I’m curious to know what specific points made in the video were objectionable to you. I’m also curious–and sad–that you’d work to have it banned. I’d hope that as an educator you’d choose to use it as a tool for discussion. Repressive states use censorship and banning to prevent conversation and encourage conformity of thought. Doesn’t it make sense to encourage thoughtful conversation and critical analysis rather than simply trying to hide it?
↵
