Babbitt: Reflection of a Historical Marker

Babbitt:
Reflection of a Historical Marker
Placed Between the
Post-Civil War
And
Post-World War II Eras


In many ways, consumerism could be defined as a collection of dynamics—relationships between the individual and society, between the individuals of a family, between the consumer-individual and the producer-world, and between the individual and the “reality” perceived. It is interesting that we never hear of the producer-individual (unless one were to include the great monopolists under that category), perhaps because speaking of such an individual would beg the question of manipulation and control which are taboo in our culture (the babble of conspiracy theorists, and the insane). It is even more interesting that when we speak of individuals of any single dynamic, we may really be speaking of only that one: the consumer-individual. Lastly, any questioning of these dynamics and the rules which bind the individual to them, leads one to questioning reality itself and may (this is not a given) only produce sorrow, a quick reduction in relationships, or insanity—so there is very little incentive to taking this route in life, should it ever present itself.

Consumerism appears to have taken abrupt shifts in its identity (to the point now that it is referred to as a culture, as opposed to a mere aspect of a culture). Such dramatic shifts tend to take place soon after times of upheaval, disorder or confusion—times when people are under incredible stress and are more likely to question motivations, standards and traditions. The confusion allows the “reality” to loosen its hold, and for people to realize the mere possibility of alternatives to that way of life. For example, after each of the great World Wars, a growing number of blacks questioned their way of life (under Jim Crow laws in the south, and similar treatment elsewhere). The first instance, under the leadership of Marcus Garvey, saw a brief attempt of a separate black economy [Garvey, pg. 1]. The second, under many leaders, most distinctively the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., saw a complete overturning of the Jim Crow laws, and after much hardship, some drastic desegregation. Both of these were periods not just of unrest, but sincere questioning on a level of core values.

It could be argued that the novel by Sinclair Lewis, Babbitt, was a reflection of just such an event, where people of a certain class, just after an episode of high confusion (World War I), began to question their involvement in the consumer culture. Also, that this event marked the transition between the evolution of consumerism (from post-Civil War times) and its solidification (post-World War II—the golden age). But unlike the examples provided above, consumerism overcame its setbacks and actually began to flourish.

George Babbit is not heading for the transitional period mentioned, but in fact, he is already caught up in it. The novel opens up with Babbit already feeling a twinge—a sense of something not quite right—just three pages into the text: “He sulkily admitted now that there was no more escape, but he lay and detested the grind of the realestate business, and disliked his family, and disliked himself for disliking them” (Lewis, pp. 3-4). It is important to note that the protagonist is not merely a salesman, but a seller of “realestate”—for property, in terms of land and a house, is the only item to hold real value—fitting for one who is about to question his own values.

What allowed consumerism to succeed, where other questionable dynamics (e.g. segregation) failed? One possibility could be the transfer of value from ideas or people to money (or the objects it can attain)—that money can be used to secure posessions which reflect one’s values. As Michael Osborne, a rhetor, suggests, “Western culture [lives by the axiom] material conditions follow from moral causes. If a man or state qualifies by having certain specified virtues, the present condition of well-being is explained” (Osborne, p. 119).

Another possibility could be the transfer of products from the “things desired” into the “things necessary” category. This is accomplished via the insurgent activity of advertising, and of one’s very own family members or friends. Lewis accomplishes a reproduction of such activity brilliantly, demonstrating both insurgence and the transference simultaneously. On one occasion, Ted, Babbit’s son, brings up the issue of upholding one’s social responsibilities: “…I promissed couple o’ girls in my class I’d drive ’em down to the rehearsal…a gentleman’s got to keep his social engagements. There’s two fellows that their dads are millionaires. I ought to have a car of my own, like lots of the fellows” (Lewis, pp. 17-18).

Here we have the concept of consumerism (purchasing a vehicle) mixed up with “social engagements,” and further mixed up with the concept of status—no coincidence that Ted would mention ‘millionaires’ immediately to his proposal of having a car, knowing that his father aspires to higher status, and therefore, “having a car for the son translates to the image of wealth”—never mind that funding might not be available (there’s always credit). Babbit attempts to dismiss this with some wit, “don’t you want a yacht, and a house and a lot?” (p. 18), but Ted has done his job, and the seed has been planted effectively, even if this particular notion doesn’t pan out.

A third possibility could be the sacrifice of the value “independence” for that of “convenience.” Though the first two are directly confronted throughout Babbitt, and might offer a plausible answer, it is the third that Babbit surely exhibits as the definitive solution to the consumerism paradox, as the members of George Babbit’s society were so tired of confusion, that they would go out of their way to uphold order, and any questioning would only distract them from that goal—producing anxiety. Once consumerism became tied up with order, other issues such as value and product transfer (as described above) would easily fall into place. Babbit, during a fit of anxiety, relieves himself by purchasing a cigarette lighter—an act of condemnation (this foreshadows Babbit’s inevitable return to a more ordered way of thinking). All that value—all that energy and focus—directed at a mere token, might seem to us as a bit crazy, but to Babbit this was “holding onto the mast during a storm.”

People could instill value in money, specifically because it was convenient to do so. People could convince themselves to purchase items “out of convenience” and even conclude that doing so was necessary. For example, why take the bus, when you could “save time” and purchase a car?—and we all know that the bus often runs late (if a bus even exists), or too far out of the way (we’d have to walk the rest of the way to our destination), plus, the car has the added benefit of raising one’s status. Status, mixed with convenience, mixed with necessity, mixed with value, all became a powerful combination—and all that is required to participate in consumerism is to reason for any one of them.

With regard to any vocal concerns, Babbit’s friend Paul might be considered representation for such outer influences. However, the fact that sincere confrontation with consumerism is not shown, tells us that should any such antics exist in Babbit’s world, they go largely unrecognized.

So why would Babbitt, as opposed to other works of that era (e.g. “The Great Gatsby” or “A Farewell to Arms”—each of which discussed values) more clearly represent such a potent combination? Primarily, because the George Babbitt as a protagonist does not merely question the values of others or of society, he also questions his own set of values—an act which sets him into a deep psychological spin. We see a slight growth on the part of Babbit’s character, illustrated on the very last page during his brief “humanly” discussion with Ted, but we all know that Babbit did not take a grand leap outside his reality, and his questioning attitude was limited to minor episodes—he will return triumphantly to the realestate business, and to consumerism with a passion.






Works Cited


Encyclopaedia Britannica. “Garvey, Marcus (Moziah).” Website: http://www.blackhistory.eb.com/micro/227/63/html , ed. 1999.

Lewis, Sinclair. Babbitt. New York: Penguin Group, 1998.

Osborne, Michael. Archetypal Metaphor in Rhetoric: The Light-Dark Family. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 1967.