Jump to content

Talk:Affluenza

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jaded-view (talk | contribs) at 02:49, 17 July 2008 (→Virus?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Clarification /Compare with conspicuous consumption

The article tries to present affluenza as an actual disease, rather than a social theory capable of explaining negative effects of a hyper-consumerist society. "Affluenza" really seems to be more of a newly coined buzzword to describe set of conditions that have long existed in modern societies. The idea should be compared with conspicuous consumption.

Affluenza is presented too literally, as though it's a recognized mental disorder and/or a widely recognized and accepted theory. Until such recognition of Affluenza becomes more prevalent, this article should focus more on the history and origins of the term itself, proponents, arguments used by proponents for advancement, criticism of theory, etc. To say "the United States suffers from Affluenza" is inappropriate at this time. Rather "proponents of Affluenza, citing the consumerist conditions of the United States, would say that Americans most prevalently display the negative consequences of a society focused on consumption", or something to that effect, seems more appropriate. 67.159.70.74 (talk)

Transwikied

In fact the Wiktionary article is at Wiktionary:affluenza with a small "a". -- JimR 05:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia article

There is enough information in this article to maintain a separate article rather than merging with consumerism. Several books and a series have been written around this term; more detailed material could be included from those works. Also, the term crops up enough that having a separate Wikipedia article is useful to readers. WpZurp 12:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that the Wikipedia article could be expanded enough to merit a separate existence. Since the article has already been transwikied to the Wiktionary, I'm replacing the Transwiki tag recently re-added with an expand tag instead. -- JimR 05:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep it as is. Affluenza != Consumerism They are similar, but not the same. The identification of anti-consumerists via the use of this term would be lost if Affluenza were buried as some subsection of a larger article. And the roots of the term are more clearly given here in a shorter article. Maybe put a "See also" in the Consumerism article, but don't merge it. 71.169.141.172 13:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it quite defines affluenza correctly, despite the fairly concerted attempt to do so. I am going to look it up in sources; generally affluenza means the social malaise based on being wealthy rather than just aspiring to wealth or material accumulation, although it can include those; in other words, it's a specific illness of the rich, poor things. That includes the "relatively rich" and so many take it to mean for example most people living in developed countries. LiberalViews 21:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expand?

Note that the article previously had an expand template like this:


but it was moved to this talk page by SimonP on 21 October2005. This seems reasonable since the article has probably been expanded enough already to stand on its own. -- JimR 05:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree strongly. The article is weak, does not include anything about what affluenze seeks to address and if anything seems to present it in a slightly unfavorable light.

Perhaps it should be rewritten by someone more favorably disposed to environmental and social issues.

Portmanteau?

Looking at the portmanteau page is there some doubt as to whether Affluenza really is a portmanteau in the proper sense? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.143.100.232 (talk • contribs) 21 May 2006.

That page says (in part): "A folk usage of portmanteau refers to a word that is formed by combining both sounds and meanings from two or more words." This sense, if not the formal one, does seem to apply to affluenza as a combination of affluence and influenza, so it's reasonable to use the term portmanteau here. -- JimR 04:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV

This article is POV, for instance, when it talks about the American middle class not being satisfied. Is it really just the middle class in America? -THB 21:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I don't think the section in on Affluenza in America is even relevant to affluenza, but rather bashing middle class and quoting Cheryl Crow.
I agree, too. I'll remove it. I'll also remove the POV tag - please reinsert and explain here if it still applies. — Sebastian (talk) 07:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This concerns POV tag cleanup. Whenever an POV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it. This permits discussion and consensus among editors. This is a drive-by tag, which is discouraged in WP, and it shall be removed. Future tags should have discussion posted as to why the tag was placed, and how the topic might be improved. Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements. This statement is not a judgement of content, it is only a cleanup of frivolously and/or arbitrarily placed tags. No discussion, no tag.Jjdon (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aff. in the Bible

I cleaned up the "Affluenza in the Bible" section; it was highly POV and engaged in a lot of Christianese. Frankly, I think the section belongs more in the general anti-consumerism article anyway. --Jay (Histrion) (talk • contribs) 16:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

    I found continued Christianese, and did further cleaning (including linking to a more                   
    consensus-based biblical translation).  -Jonny Katz 05:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Virus?

Am I the only one who finds it strange to call this a virus? I realize it's a reference to influenza, but there is no literal virus nor actual vaccine. More of a social condition than a "virus". CallmeNiel 10:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fair to call it so, as James book clearly discusses it in this way. James' book also finishes each chapter with 'Vaccines', to help overcome 'afflunza'. Sure, it's not a medical virus, but just like computer virus aren't 'real' virus, it's a useful model. peterl (talk) 10:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Call it a meme if you prefer. It's a contagious idea-virus, caught by interacting with it. --Jaded-view (talk) 02:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing mix of economic and political labels

Their greater Affluenza is explained as the result of 'Selfish Capitalism', the neo-Conservative or Market Liberal political governance found in English-speaking nations compared to more unselfish capitalist governeance in mainland Europe.

That really needs to be cleaned up, especially if it is an inaccurate generalization or paraphrase of the actual original text, because the distinguishing feature of mainland Europe as being "unselfish capitalism" is just false. Mainland Europe is known to have more socialistic policies than the U.S. The Third Way is just not some form of "unselfish capitalism". Also, using "neo-Conservative" in this context seems incorrect and needs to be verified. Mmortal03 07:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the term "neo-liberal" is more appropriate than "neo-conservative."
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Affluenza&oldid=226162822"