Inequality in Mass Suburbia

The chapter that most interested me in this week's reading was Chapter 5, Residence: Inequality in Mass Suburbia. Cohen gave a very detailed description of how the rise of suburbia inherently created inequalities in access to better housing and schools. My grandparents raised my mom and uncle in this sort of suburbia in Omaha. My grandpa had a corporate job in the city and they bought a large split-level home on 132nd and Center, which in the early 1960s, was the outskirts of Omaha. Cohen talks a lot about how people in suburbia were concerned with their property values and this fit my grandparent's description perfectly. Even to this day they are overwhelmed with concern over their property value. Every time someone moves into neighborhood, they talk about what it will mean to the quality of their neighborhood.

Another thing I was interested to learn was the inequality in education that arose in the 1950s. Communities today are still struggling with the problems suburbia created during this time. One example, is the proposal of the "Learning Community" in Omaha. As the years go by, the rich have gotten richer in West Omaha, and the poor have gotten poorer towards the city center. Of course this creates disparities in education funding and Omaha's best solution to this problem was to integrate the funding and allow children from the "inner city" to attend better schools out west if they wanted. West Omahans, however, didn't want their tax dollars going to schools other than those in their district. After all, they moved to these districts for their good school systems and they wanted to protect their investments.

So, my question is, could this inequality have been avoided? Was it inevitable this would happen during a population boom?

Democratic Space

I have been thinking a lot recently about the shrinking of public spaces/places. Cohen's discussion in chapter 6 concerning the commercialization, privatization, and feminization of public spaces highlighted the restrictions of civil liberties in our consumer's republic. Referencing Habermas, Cohen notes "the commercializing, privatizing, and segmenting of physical gathering places [...] has made more precarious the shared public sphere upon which democracy depends" (289). I think one of the more prevalent arguments for the embrace of networked communication is that it creates digital spaces for people to protest and express themselves without being arrested for trespassing on private property. I wonder if we might discuss however what is gained/lost by such an approach. Does networked communication replace the physical public space? Or, does it rather accentuate public spaces by creating technological avenues for prior organization and attention? Do we consider chat rooms and facebook places of assembly in a political sense?

Women in Advertising

A part of the reading that stuck out to me this week Cohen's section in Chapter 6 titled "Feminizing Public Space" beginning on page 278. This section discusses the development of shopping centers moving from downtown shopping. Cohen talks about how women did most of the shopping at this time and developments were being made to better accomodate women and make them feel comfortable. Cohen then moves on to discuss how, "Shopping centers responded to suburban couples' growing tendency to shop together with stores and programming specifically designed to further encourage families to turn shopping chores into leisure time spent at the mall," (281). However, being an advertising and MCA student this got me thinking about what advertisers were focusing on during this decade. While Cohen does discuss this some, I wanted to learn more about it. I found a book titled "The 1950's" by William H. Young and Nancy K. Young. SInce it is a google book, I am not able to copy and paste the text I read in this post, but I will provide the link. The section begins on page 47 and is titled "Advertising and Women."

http://books.google.com/books?id=pt-o5xnJXvkC&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&dq=women+shoppers+in+the+50s&source=bl&ots=brvz_rjgex&sig=qa7Wbcgp8LbpuA2dSSikNI9mwS0&hl=en&ei=lqR1TaSQBfGD0QG74_jmBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CEcQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q&f=false

It discusses the woman as the household decision maker, mom creating the quintessential "happy home" and how marketers began to target not only household items, but also "Automatic transmissions in cars, wrinkle-free clothing, self-pasting wallpapers, and quick-drying paints could be counted among the many products aimed at the busy woman," (page 48). I found it interesting how it tied in with and sometimes contrasted with Cohen's ideas of women shoppers and feminizing public spaces.

Hipsters: Counter Culture or Consumer Culture?

I enjoyed reading Thomas Frank's "Why Johnny Can't Dissent." It made me think about the "hipster" subculture that took hold through the first decade of the 21st century.

Hipsters are an example of a group that formed around the notions of non-conformity and individuality, but have quickly become a cliche... even mainstream. *Gasp!* You know the stereotypes: 18 to 30-somethings who openly despise all things "popular" and sport vintage flannel, thick-framed eyeglasses, and ironic haircuts, while sucking down Parliments and Schlitz.

In the Adbusters article, "Hipster: The Dead End of Western Civilization" (July 2009), writer Douglas Haddow argues that hipsterdom is the "end product of all previous countercultures," except with a complete lack of originality or subversiveness. Basically, he says it's a subculture that claims to reject anything mainstream-- while borrowing "cool" from previous generations of rebel movements (Beats, hippies, punk, grunge, early hip-hop, etc.) rather than creating it. Here is an excerpt:

"Hipsterdom is the first 'counterculture' to be born under the advertising industry's microscope, leaving it open to constant manipulation but also forcing its participants to continually shift their interests and affiliations. Less a subculture, the hipster is a consumer group – using their capital to purchase empty authenticity and rebellion. But the moment a trend, band, sound, style or feeling gains too much exposure, it is suddenly looked upon with disdain. Hipsters cannot afford to maintain any cultural loyalties or affiliations for fear they will lose relevance... An amalgamation of its own history, the youth of the West are left with consuming cool rather that creating it."

Marketers have definitely caught on to the hipster trend. Why should we dig through thrift store bins for one-of-a-kind, vintage pieces any more when places like Urban Outfitters and Hot Topic can do the work for us? Pabst Blue Ribbon has been a poster child brand for effectively tapping into hipster consumerism. American Apparel made it's way into the Midwest... need I say more?
To conclude, I think that the individualism that hipsters seek to portray is more deeply rooted in capitalism than rebellion. Instead of defying the herd, they've become the herd. (Albeit a stylish herd.)



P.S. Did you guys know Johnny Rotten of the Sex Pistols is now promoting butter? Wow.

As I was reading "Why Johnny Can't Dissent" automatically I started thinking about archetypes in advertising. There are 12 different archetypes and one of them is "the outlaw." Here is a complete branding strategy all about, "no longer enforcing order, but destroying it." (275) And there is no better company better at embracing this rebellious culture than Harley Davidson. To help illustrate this, check out the video below. I mean, what is more rebellious than, "we believe in the bucking the system that's built to smash individuals like bugs on a windshield."

Standards of evaluation in a "consumer republic"

Throughout reading consumer republic I found myself agreeing with many of Cohen's observation. What it left me with was a profound desire for the rational world paradigm. Market segmentation allows specific appeals to such niche markets that, as Cohen points out, people begin feeling entitled and, in many ways, constrained by their own specific desires. While this may be liberating in a consumerist mindset, it is severely limiting in a sense of the civic. Engagement, when it becomes personalized, loses the very rationality that I desire. The fact of the matter is most issues of public policy made at the governmental level are created around the idea of effecting large masses of people. That level of impact rarely finds itself easily marketed to the individual consumerist level expected within the framework and cultural norm of market segmentation. It is how an issue like global warming, which has the potential to effect the world (global) becomes a niche issue that is argued only by those people who fit a particular segment of the population (environmentalists). At a more abstract level, it also helps explain how large political issues (the Iraq War, Health Care, Food Aid) can be ignored by many who are not "interested" in politics. The apathy that becomes the norm in a consumer driven model leaves me wondering, is it such a stretch to ask that people be able to hold two separate rubrics of evaluation in their heads at once? Doesn't Toulmin's (1958) model of argument in some way allow people to evaluate their television programming by a different standard than their civic engagement? And if not--why? The fun thing about the blog is having no answers--only questions.

'Consumption' overload

Throughout my reading of Cohen’s “A Consumers’ Republic,” I waited and waited for the comparisons to our consumption of mass media, though what I read instead was an interesting history of how we’ve gotten to the consumptive culture and economy we have.

Still, I felt a bit relieved to read this column by Mark Harris in Entertainment Weekly magazine and have it speak to me on a new level, thanks to the Cohen book and the focus on the word “consumption.”

Harris’ point is that we all need to stop gorging on technology -- or at the very least, enjoy our technologies one at a time. But this line, discussing the idea of converging social media with entertainment and being able to watch your friends discuss a TV show embedded on your TV as you watch it, brought it home to class: “To some, this may sound great. To me, it represents ... the gaping mouth of hell. I don’t know about you, but anybody who peppers me with witticisms, commentary, or any other interruption while I’m watching ‘Mad Men’ is going to get unfriended fast. For one hour, I want my only relationship to be with that show. I don’t just want to consume it; I want to be consumed by it. Which is what the entertainment we really love always does for us.” (emphasis mine)

Finally: that word, consume -- and the interesting idea that good entertainment also can consume us … in a good way.

But the article two pages later in that magazine lends itself even further into the consumption of media, and the idea of being consumed by it. The article, “You’re Invited to a Royal Frenzy,” details the mass media’s work to chronicle and scoop one another on the April 29 royal wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton. It seems that at a time when Harris is preparing his own diet of mass media enjoyment, the rest of the entertainment media, and beyond, is preparing a smorgasbord for the masses on this light, happy tale. The lengthy article tells of the various magazines’ and TV stations’ work to share the upcoming wedding and the impact that having a networked society -- as opposed to just the mass communications available during Charles and Diana’s wedding a few decades back -- will have on the way we all view this event. As Robert J. Thompson, a professor of television and popular culture at Syracuse University, is quoted: “This is going to be a massive global conversation.”

The contrast of themes -- the diet we require and yet the overload we’re all going to get with this one spectacular event -- was notable. Then this week’s Entertainment Weekly arrived in my mailbox, with Charlie Sheen on the cover, and that’s another topic of entertainment news consumption we could discuss and digest.

Info Overload Leads to Triteness

While segmenting the masses may have been the beginning of the Networked Society, as people, business and the government understood the benefits of targeting similar groups of people as opposed to the masses, it may also have been the beginning of the end of the citizen consumer.

After WWII, the mass communication/consumption train had left the station, and business and government worked together to promote the idea that everyone should want a particular lifestyle (i.e. suburban, middle class living). The Broadway musical, Little Shop of Horrors, satirically depicted both the reality and fantasy of this lifestyle especially as it related to the urban poor. The song, "Somewhere That's Green," most effectively details that disconnect for the urban poor.

The reality that this ideal lifestyle is not attainable by everyone, nor is it desired by everyone, led businesses to segment the marketplace. A consumer group is upset about some business practice, then business responded by putting a fresh coat of paint over the problem by speaking directly to that segment without necessarily fixing the problem. As communication grew more and more fragmented, it became increasingly easier to reach particular segments, but it also became increasingly important to reach them with short, quick statements as the amount of attention time one had to reach the people was rapidly decreasing. As this Newsweek article discusses, the more information a person has available to them, the more that a person will rely on cognitive biases to make decisions. One of those biases being catchy repeated phrases that can break through the clutter. This has led to the personalization of politics and the avoidance of discussing actual issues in the present political environment. This Family Guy clip is a disturbingly accurate picture of what takes place in political debates.

My question or fear is this, in a segmented Networked Society, certain groups may get power to speak for everyone when in fact they only speak for a few (ex. Christian Parental Group forcing the FTC to create new decency regulations after the Janet Jackson nipple slip in the Superbowl). What does everyone think of this?

Book Report Dates

At long last, you can get off the edge of your seats, for the book report assignments are here! Huzzah! I'll detail more about what I am looking for in the next class, but here is when I want the reports done. Email me a copy on the day you are presenting. Each presentation should be 5-7 minutes and should try to connect with some of the course concepts. I think that everyone is represented here; if not, email me and we'll get you slated for a date.


March 29 (Visuality)

Jessy--Refiguring Mass Communication
Kelynne--Typecasting

April 5 (Network Society I)

Malika--Six Degrees
Dana--Long Tail
Chad--Personal Connections

April 12 (Network Society II)

Tuck--Lingua Fracta
Kathy--Convergence Culture
Adam--Net Effect


April 19 (Network Society III)

Farmer--Networked Publics
Alisha & Blake--Socialnomics
Stephanie--Cognitive Surplus

April 26 (Critics of Conectedness)
Mike--Alone Together
Spencer--Facebook Effect

It pains me to see that society is most interested in this today. I saw it as one of the most viewed articles and had to contain myself from being sick to stomach. She was arrested and released early this morning. Which means she wasn't even in her own home before society knew that she was drunk in public. Imagine if this is how parents found out about how we spend our college days or when we(if any of you have) broke the law. Granted my parents or family don't follow my every move on TMZ. There should be a 24 hour clause on when TMZ, Entertainment Tonight and so forth can post information like this. Sad thing about this, I really don't even like Christina just disappointed that it made the top stories of the day.

Christina Aguilera arrested for drunkenness

Singer Christina Aguilera and her boyfriend have been arrested on suspicion of being drunk in a car that was stopped on a West Hollywood street.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/41848647/ns/today-entertainment/from/toolbar

"Slow Food" Consumer Movement (Response to Stephanie)

In response to Stephanie's post regarding the current revival of consumer consciousness and reforms in the food industry...

Many of you are aware of the "real food" trend that has emerged in recent years. Consumers (hippies and non-hippies alike) are starting to demand more high quality food choices with short ingredient lists and words they can actually pronounce. Several books and documentaries focusing on the current state of our food system have helped educate consumers about healthful eating and ways to bring about reform. As a result, consumers have started talking about these issues (i.e. industrialized agriculture, reliance on corn, pesticides, GMOs, animal cruelty, etc.) in public forums via networked communication-and taking action with their pocketbooks.

We're starting to see a lot more restaurants touting their local and sustainable food sources and advertising that emphasizes "real," "pure," "simple," and "natural" ingredients. (Although, we should be skeptical about whether manufacturers can truly mass-produce healthy foods without loads of processing and preservatives. Nevertheless, they're marketing them to us as such.) It is interesting to compare the current recession to the Great Depression era. Instead of demanding lower prices in tough economic times, there has been a surge in backyard gardens and farmer's markets, as well as the increased expectation that the food industry provide us with quality food without giving up convenience.

Author and food expert Michael Pollan discusses how consumers are starting to reform the food industry by voting with their dollars:

"Perhaps more than any other, the food industry is very sensitive to consumer demand. Every major food company now has an organic division. There’s more capital going into organic agriculture than ever before. If consumers make good choices, the industry will respond. Will it be everything we hope? Probably not. They didn’t come up with organic, after all. That came from small farmers and consumers working together in relative obscurity. We need to sustain a noncorporate food chain to serve as the antennae for culture and agriculture. Whatever works will be picked up by the larger companies...When Wal-Mart and McDonald’s start selling organic food, it will drive down the price to farmers and risk growing a new monoculture. On the other hand, the whole country will be educated about the virtues of eating organic food. So the center will move, which is how change always comes to this country." (source: http://michaelpollan.com/profiles/the-cheapest-calories-make-you-the-fattest-a-food-chain-journalist-looks-for-stories-in-our-meals/)

Even if this trend will not lead to large-scale boycotts of processed food, fast food restaurants, and corporate agriculture-- at least I feel we're moving in the right direction as consumers. We're starting to question whether we can sacrifice our health for the sake of cheap food. Our networked society has enabled people to spread the word about the health risks associated with our current food system via blogs, podcasts, social media, films, books, and even old fashioned word of mouth. Like Stephanie, I think that the “Slow Food” movement is more than a fad. It appears to be a revival of consumer activism towards eating real, whole foods – much like those consumers ate back in the 1930s amidst the food price protests. My question is -- does networked communication make our purchasing power more effective or does it dilute it? Even though we can communicate with each other on a much large scale, perhaps a more concentrated, local boycott of unhealthy food providers would have more of an impact on reform.

Governing and the public

The section of the reading that stuck out to me this week was when Hart explained how critical discourse can be restricted by television consumption of politics. Hart said, "heavy television watchers know precious little about how they are governed" (p. 12). This claim illustrates a problem with consumer politics in that people do not critically evaluate the "how" of policy options, only their impacts. The implication of this is that television viewership actually constrains opportunities for critical discourse about governmental function. A talking point in the public sphere could be about how Congress spends money in specific instances, but instead seems to blend into a conversation about how spending in general is either good or bad. The nuance of the discussion is lost in the generalization. Knowing how you are governed and how that governance could be changed for your benefit would greatly alter the larger political conversation, so the question I have becomes: do networked publics offer a solution to this generalization brought about by televised media. While the internet may be too vast for any one person to know everything, doesn't the idea of a networked group at least open up the potential for the sort of "attention" to a specific political instance that could alter discourse? Whether small or large scale, I think the potential of networked publics may offer some solutions to the problems Hart identified.

Interesting additional reading!

http://web.mit.edu/course/21/21l.432/OldFiles/www/readings/Womens%20work.pdf

I wanted to share this reading I found called "Women's Work" by Lynn Spiegel. The reading relates a lot to Cohen and I saw several common themes, especially when discussing the gender roles and class that Cohen went into great detail about. The very first paragraph talks about the "TV-stove" in 1952, a stove with a TV built in above the oven window. I thought this was interesting because of how much Cohen discussed appliances as benefiting the public good and such. The reading goes on to a more in-depth discussion about the development of television and women, but it is an interesting read and a nice addition to the Cohen reading for the week!

Response to Stephanie's Post

I don't know why I can't post a comment to Stephanie's blog, so the following is my comment:

I think there is a fundamental difference between food practices in the 30s and today. People were protesting that food was too expensive to buy during the Great Depression, whereas today, some people are upset that food is unhealthy. Why we won't see protests on the scale of the 30s regarding food is that today's food is cheap, and especially during a recession, cheap is good. It is no surprise to the success of dollar menus in every fast food franchise. The food may be unhealthy, but I can afford it. On the other hand, if I want healthy food, I have to pay Whole Foods prices. The percentage of the population that can afford to pay high prices for food is small. Will people protest high prices on certain foods when others are incredibly cheap? There has been outrage about fast food since Supersize Me, Fast Food Nation, and Food Inc., yet we have seen no major changes. Maybe that is some evidence that the old ways of mobilizing people have changed, or evidence that the socialization power of mass media have so thoroughly convinced us that more consumption is better that we don't fight back.

The North Platte Canteen

In Cohen's Rise of the Citizen Consumer, she speaks of the role of the citizen consumer that gained representation and a political voice through buying power and consumption. In doing so, traditionally marginalized voices (women and African Americans) could gain power and civic authority through their role as a consumer (p. 63).  Significantly, during WWII white American women gained the ability to wield not only their power as consumers, but also within traditionally male dominated active public roles (p. 81).  This transition worked due to media's ability to make connections outside the traditional neighborhood that many Americans had operated in during the 20's and the Great Depression (p. 38); and the fact that as consumption was moved into the civic real during the war giving women a larger stake within political participation (p. 84).  I have attached a (somewhat campy) video of the North Platte Canteen. An organization where women would exercise their dual role of active public agents as well as citizen consumers operating within the confines of war-time rationing.  Pay particular attention to the add that flashes at the 1:31 where Rae Wilson urges the women of Western Nebraska to "do something and do it in a hurry! We can help in this way when we can't help in any other." It is statements like this that illustrate the significance American's placed on the role citizen consumerism, while showing the women of the region growing into the now vacant public agent roles.

Revival of consumer consciousness

In the first chapter of a "Consumer's Republic," author Lizabeth Cohen discusses the wave of active consumerism that evolved during the Depression era. Following WWI, people began purchasing mass goods based on the fact they had increasing leisure time and better wages to support a newfound "American Standard of Living" (Cohen 22). As mass production and mass buying kicked into full swing, however, manufacturers and advertisers began deploying deceptive advertising techniques and jacking up prices to higher rates than consumers were willing to spend. So, consumers took action, and a strong percentage of activists were women.

I thought it was interesting how women's consumer clubs were not taken seriously, until the economy hit rock bottom. "The depression, however,...brought the consumer interest to the fore in the already organized women's organizations" (Cohen 33). This can be easily related to a revival of consumer consciousness since the Great Recession in the last few years. One of the sectors that stands out fairly prominently to me is the food industry. The economy of the 1990s and early 2000s led consumers to adopt more convenient practices with how they purchased food at grocery stores and dined out at fast food chains. People had the money, so why not go for a quick meal? Brands took advantage of consumers' negligence over what they were buying. They increased the amount of artificial, cheaper ingredients and marketed products as "healthier" options. I posted an article below about a recent McDonald's campaign that shows just one example of marketing tactics and consumers' tendency to trust brands in providing them healthy food. However, there has been growing criticism of major food brands and fast food chains that fail to divulge information that might make consumers think twice about buying their products. I've seen a lot of articles like this and many people are starting to question their entire diet, making more informed purchasing decisions. I think the Great Recession made people look a little more closely at what they were buying and journalists have seen viral success with articles highlighting corporate misdeeds. I think we're experiencing another revival of consumer consciousness and I expect to see more legislation in the food industry because of it.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/how-to-make-oatmeal-wrong/?src=me&ref=general

Modern politics requires mastery of what?

In Political Feeling, Hart makes the argument that television has changed the way politics work; that “modern politics requires mastery of television.” This made me wonder, and I pose this question for the class;

If television changed politics for the 1992 election, what did Internet do to the 2008 election?

Then, if would so choose, another question is;

How will our networked media affect (or change) politics for the 2012 election?

Media Event and Protesting

One point Roderick Hart makes concerning the influence of television on American democracy is that the proliferation of coverage makes it so that television “now tells us how to feel about politics” (8). I have recently become intrigued by the ways American news media has shaped national conceptualizations of protest and protesters. In the last several months one emerging topoi in mediated constructions of politics has been the notion of the protest. Tea Party demonstrations, for instance, were quickly labeled as a 21^st century social movement due to their large attendance and networked minded leadership. While those on the political right quickly proclaimed a rejuvenated sense of civic participation, others portrayed the Tea Party through frames of irrationality and racism. Conversely, those on the political left have recently been rather positive in their reception of the labor protests in Wisconsin, at the same time that pundits on the right have cried foul. I think it is useful for us to consider the framing of protests and protesters because Lizabeth Cohen’s A Consumer Republic shows just have influential early feminist and African American protests were in establishing the notion of “citizen consumers” (8). Ironically, Cohen goes on to note that opponents of consumer focused economics resisted such efforts by labeling them as communist and anti-business (59). The political reforms enacted following the 2007 recession have been labeled along similar lines. I do think it is worth discussing however, that mass demonstrations in the forms of boycotts, marches, and sit-ins have become less utilized in comparison to the 30’s and 70’s. How can we account for this? Is it possible that television coverage has given us a poor perception of protest? Or, is our networked society bringing protest back? How would our news media cover the protests against food prices by 1930's women?

Make it 13.

When robots attack.

The Decline of Dubai: Modern Day Gold Rush & Doubious Cultural Values

After reading Harold Innis' article about industrialism and cultural values, I was reminded of the tremendous growth of Dubai in the Middle East. It is mind-boggling to see the rate at which Dubai has developed in terms of the amount of residents, tourists, real estate properties, and commercial endeavors in the last decade under the leadership of its ambitious ruler, Sheikh Mohammed.

Mohammed says that he loves American culture, aside from its foreign policy, but yet he seems to be racing to make Dubai BIGGER and BETTER than the U.S. Its massive growth in architecture is particularly impressive. He seems to equate prestige and success with over-the-top architecture and industrial growth – building the world’s tallest building, biggest shopping center, man-made islands, etc.

The frenetic pace of growth in the region has had some negative implications on the culture. To scratch the surface, human trafficking and exploitive labor practices have been two major social consequences. It also seems like Dubai’s culture is based solely on commercial activity and corporate interests, rather than more “enriching” things like art or philosophy.

Echoing Innis, Dubai’s intense period of culture activity seems to be reaching the inevitable fatigue stage. Since 2008, Dubai’s ability to expand seemed to have been tapped out with the decline of the real estate markets and the cost of infrastructure problems.

I use this example because, in a way, I feel that Dubai’s “new” culture is a sad reflection of our materialistic, consumer-driven culture in the U.S. It is fascinating how a place on the other side of the world could be striving to emulate and even “top” American commercialism. Surely, without the advent of mass communication, people in the Middle East would not be so heavily influenced by American culture. I remember not being aware of Dubai before 60 Minutes did a story on it in 2007. Through television, I was able to learn about the changes that were taking place in the region. I recall feeling disgusted at the amount of excess, greed, and waste behind Dubai’s growth…which is a direct product of the Western culture in which we are engrained.

Maybe I’m off-track here, but the type of civilization in Dubai seems to be on a path to self-destruction.

Some questions:

Are the people behind the growth of Dubai trying to strengthen Middle East culture by becoming more “Western” or are they attempting to weaken American culture in some way by becoming bigger and better? OR – is the main motivation just plain greed?

Is Dubai’s metamorphosis into a commercial capital of the world a reflection of a civilization that is improving (i.e. becoming more democratic) or declining (i.e. too much emphasis on money, material goods)?

60 Minutes: "Dubai, Inc. - Part 1"
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4312234n

Photo Slide Show: "Off the Deep End: The Decline of Dubai" (FastCompany.com)
http://www.fastcompany.com/multimedia/slideshows/content/dubai.html?