Whole Foods and Starbucks Revisited

By Daniel Miessler on November 30th, 2008: Tagged as Psychology

I’ve had some time to think about my take on Whole Foods and other elitism-inducing environments, such as Starbucks. I’m no longer convinced they are negative–or, to put it a better way–I’ve realized they’re no more negative than any other positive thing.

That’s confusing; allow me to clarify.

Anything that makes you feel accomplished or positive in some way can have two effects: it can either drive you in a positive way and encourage you to try and help others achieve the same thing (positive), or it can serve as a reason for looking down at others (negative). This applies to any number of accomplishments, including having a high salary, an advanced education, etc.

I believe it’s the same with Starbucks and Whole Foods. Some people go because it makes them want to improve their own lives. It puts them in the mood to excel at life. Others go so that they can look down on those who don’t.

Broken Windows

This is related to a study that just came out that showed that ones’ surroundings affects their behavior. The study found that when there was litter or graffiti in an area, people were far more likely to engage in roguish behavior themselves. In other words, if a person sees that a place is already trashed, it inspires trashiness within themselves as well. It’s called the “broken window” theory.

Well, Whole Foods and Starbucks are the same exact phenomenon, but in reverse. In short, being in these places make me want to be a better person. Being in Whole Foods made me want to work out, watch the Food Network, and make my own organic food while getting a Masters degree. It accomplished this in exactly the same way that being in a ghetto makes me hostile. Once again, it’s the understated power of environment.

Thoughts? ::

Links

[ Graffiti and Litter Lead to More Street Crime | newscientist.com ]

Viewing 2 Comments

Jonathan S. 1 month ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

When studying my major (Criminology) we studied the Broken Windows theory and I always agreed with it. It's cool to finally see an "experiment" that tested that theory to some extent.

However, I just thought of a question. If you fixed up every ghetto neighborhood and made it clean and fixed all the "broken windows" would the neighborhood change? Or is it still a problem with the people and their attitudes? Either way, I think it would be safe to say "nice" neighborhoods and communities with places like Whole Foods will always have less visible crime. Perhaps they will have a lot more white collar crime though? I'm rambling now... Thanks for the post though.

reply edit reblog flag

http://www.subtlerantings.com

Lars 1 month ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

@Jonathan:

I think the most important thing is, that the change comes somehow from the inside. Take the very extreme, you cordon off whole streets, sweep them clean, put up plants and cycle lanes, do all the fancy cleaning stuff, maybe even far into the houses, cleaning floors for free. And afterwards maybe you even invest in some guards, policemen, for patrolling the streets. I bet it would become some kind of sports in that area to litter.

On the other hand, give the inhabitants the opportunity to clean their surroundings themselves, maybe give them to decide on whether some cleaning should be done or a new playground should be bought. If you can get some kind of agreement in the population of the area, I think this would last longer. But then, "giving the opportunity" includes stuff like education, work, and generally enough "lazy" time and income-safety to having time to worry about litter on the street.

Actually this sounds a lot like a hen-and-egg-problem, but realistically you can't have one without the other.

reply edit reblog flag