消费者的声音被听到了吗:工业、贸易和消费之间的经济和文化调解(1945-1961)

Danijela Velimirović
{"title":"消费者的声音被听到了吗:工业、贸易和消费之间的经济和文化调解(1945-1961)","authors":"Danijela Velimirović","doi":"10.21301/EAP.V16I1.2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The introduction of socialism entailed a fundamental reconstruction of bourgeois trade, which was labelled as \"profiteering\", \"speculative\" and \"black marketeering\". Alternative new trade, based on \"sound and nationwide\" foundations, was supposed to successfully link production and consumption through the planned distribution of goods, thus contributing to general prosperity and a happier future. However, the introduction of self-management in 1950 revitalized the principle of supply and demand and decentralized supply. The stated aim of the new regulations and the newly introduced control bodies was to establish ethical, efficient and \"more civilized\" trade, and to satisfy consumers' needs and wants. Although trade was assigned the role of mediator between production and consumption, research shows that in the course of the \"social life\" of things, a mutually constitutive relationship between industry, trade and consumers was being established, by means of which multiple \"mediation regimes\" were effectuated (Cronin 2004). While the first half of the 1950s was marked by trade interventions seeking to redefine the design and quality of manufactured goods, the second half of the decade saw a new departure. Industry, aided by designers as professional interpreters of consumer markets, sought to influence commercial buyers' choices with a new supply of goods aligned with consumers' wants. Through legislative acts which enabled the establishment of a consumers' council, direct mediation of consumers' needs and wants was also legitimized. These multidirectional cultural and economic mediations between industry, trade and the consumer were successful to a lesser or greater extent. Admittedly, in certain economic situations, both trade and industry used their capacity for blackmail to protect their guild interests. The hidden mechanisms of influence and power inhibited the mediating action of various actors and contributed to systemic confusion. However, it is indisputable that representatives of industry and trade as economic and cultural actors, together with consumers, sought to channel wants into economically presented forms of demand, and to gradually deconstruct the mechanisms of \"dictatorship over needs\" characteristic of socialist economies. \n ","PeriodicalId":43531,"journal":{"name":"Etnoantropoloski Problemi-Issues in Ethnology and Anthropology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is the Consumer's Voice Heard at All: Economic and Cultural Mediation Between Industry, Trade and Consumption (1945-1961)\",\"authors\":\"Danijela Velimirović\",\"doi\":\"10.21301/EAP.V16I1.2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The introduction of socialism entailed a fundamental reconstruction of bourgeois trade, which was labelled as \\\"profiteering\\\", \\\"speculative\\\" and \\\"black marketeering\\\". Alternative new trade, based on \\\"sound and nationwide\\\" foundations, was supposed to successfully link production and consumption through the planned distribution of goods, thus contributing to general prosperity and a happier future. However, the introduction of self-management in 1950 revitalized the principle of supply and demand and decentralized supply. The stated aim of the new regulations and the newly introduced control bodies was to establish ethical, efficient and \\\"more civilized\\\" trade, and to satisfy consumers' needs and wants. Although trade was assigned the role of mediator between production and consumption, research shows that in the course of the \\\"social life\\\" of things, a mutually constitutive relationship between industry, trade and consumers was being established, by means of which multiple \\\"mediation regimes\\\" were effectuated (Cronin 2004). While the first half of the 1950s was marked by trade interventions seeking to redefine the design and quality of manufactured goods, the second half of the decade saw a new departure. Industry, aided by designers as professional interpreters of consumer markets, sought to influence commercial buyers' choices with a new supply of goods aligned with consumers' wants. Through legislative acts which enabled the establishment of a consumers' council, direct mediation of consumers' needs and wants was also legitimized. These multidirectional cultural and economic mediations between industry, trade and the consumer were successful to a lesser or greater extent. Admittedly, in certain economic situations, both trade and industry used their capacity for blackmail to protect their guild interests. The hidden mechanisms of influence and power inhibited the mediating action of various actors and contributed to systemic confusion. However, it is indisputable that representatives of industry and trade as economic and cultural actors, together with consumers, sought to channel wants into economically presented forms of demand, and to gradually deconstruct the mechanisms of \\\"dictatorship over needs\\\" characteristic of socialist economies. \\n \",\"PeriodicalId\":43531,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Etnoantropoloski Problemi-Issues in Ethnology and Anthropology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Etnoantropoloski Problemi-Issues in Ethnology and Anthropology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21301/EAP.V16I1.2\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ANTHROPOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Etnoantropoloski Problemi-Issues in Ethnology and Anthropology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21301/EAP.V16I1.2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

社会主义的引入需要对资产阶级贸易进行根本性的重建,资产阶级贸易被贴上了“暴利”、“投机”和“黑市”的标签。另一种新贸易,建立在“健全和全国性”的基础上,应该通过有计划的商品分配成功地将生产和消费联系起来,从而促进普遍繁荣和更幸福的未来。然而,1950年引入的自我管理使供需原则和分散供应重新焕发了活力。新条例和新引入的管制机构的既定目标是建立道德、高效和“更文明”的贸易,并满足消费者的需要和愿望。虽然贸易被赋予了生产和消费之间的中介角色,但研究表明,在事物的“社会生活”过程中,工业、贸易和消费者之间正在建立一种相互构成的关系,通过这种关系,多种“中介机制”得以实现(Cronin 2004)。虽然20世纪50年代前半期的特点是寻求重新定义制成品设计和质量的贸易干预,但这十年的后半期出现了新的背离。在作为消费者市场专业解读者的设计师的帮助下,工业界试图通过提供符合消费者需求的新商品来影响商业买家的选择。通过使设立消费者委员会成为可能的立法行为,也使直接调解消费者的需要和愿望合法化。工业、贸易和消费者之间这些多向的文化和经济调解或多或少取得了成功。诚然,在某些经济形势下,贸易和工业都利用他们的敲诈能力来保护他们的行业利益。影响和权力的隐藏机制抑制了各种行动者的调解作用,造成了系统性混乱。然而,无可争辩的是,作为经济和文化行动者的工业和贸易代表与消费者一起,试图将需求转化为经济上呈现的需求形式,并逐渐解构社会主义经济特征的“需求专政”机制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Is the Consumer's Voice Heard at All: Economic and Cultural Mediation Between Industry, Trade and Consumption (1945-1961)
The introduction of socialism entailed a fundamental reconstruction of bourgeois trade, which was labelled as "profiteering", "speculative" and "black marketeering". Alternative new trade, based on "sound and nationwide" foundations, was supposed to successfully link production and consumption through the planned distribution of goods, thus contributing to general prosperity and a happier future. However, the introduction of self-management in 1950 revitalized the principle of supply and demand and decentralized supply. The stated aim of the new regulations and the newly introduced control bodies was to establish ethical, efficient and "more civilized" trade, and to satisfy consumers' needs and wants. Although trade was assigned the role of mediator between production and consumption, research shows that in the course of the "social life" of things, a mutually constitutive relationship between industry, trade and consumers was being established, by means of which multiple "mediation regimes" were effectuated (Cronin 2004). While the first half of the 1950s was marked by trade interventions seeking to redefine the design and quality of manufactured goods, the second half of the decade saw a new departure. Industry, aided by designers as professional interpreters of consumer markets, sought to influence commercial buyers' choices with a new supply of goods aligned with consumers' wants. Through legislative acts which enabled the establishment of a consumers' council, direct mediation of consumers' needs and wants was also legitimized. These multidirectional cultural and economic mediations between industry, trade and the consumer were successful to a lesser or greater extent. Admittedly, in certain economic situations, both trade and industry used their capacity for blackmail to protect their guild interests. The hidden mechanisms of influence and power inhibited the mediating action of various actors and contributed to systemic confusion. However, it is indisputable that representatives of industry and trade as economic and cultural actors, together with consumers, sought to channel wants into economically presented forms of demand, and to gradually deconstruct the mechanisms of "dictatorship over needs" characteristic of socialist economies.  
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
50.00%
发文量
1
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊最新文献
Metamodernism and Language: Pandemic Era Advertising "Heritage-for-Peace and Development": An Opportunity Not to be Missed The Survivor's Suite: The Life of the International Festival of Ethnological Film in Belgrade through Interesting Times Traditional Sports and Games as an Element of Intangible Cultural Heritage From the Physical Body to Dynamic Embodiment: Towards an Anthropological Study of Martial Arts Body Movement
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1