(In)Actions and Ignorance: Starbucks and IPhones

I went into Starbucks last week and ordered a black coffee.  As I waited in line I noticed that for a limited time Starbucks offers fall drinks and gives 25 cents to a charity for each of these drinks.  I believe the charity was an educational fund of some form, but the implications are the same.  For those choosing that particular drink, they get to enjoy their coffee knowing that they’ve given to charity with each delicious sip they take.  While reading Robbins’ article, I couldn’t help but consider this moment and consider how this allows people to take action through inaction.  As a consumer, those enjoying this specific drink are able to absolve themselves of any first world guilt as they sip their $5 drink because they know that 25 cents will be given to charity.  I found Robbins’ interesting in two ways.  The first pertains to this Starbucks situation.  Robbins’ interprets Spivak’s example of the northerners boycotting Bangladeshi garments as ineffectual, and that to enact true change these northerners must “forgo the illusory satisfactions of immediate action” (96).  Through this understanding, the Starbucks consumer is justified in their action of purchasing this coffee insomuch as they are able to take action through inaction.  They are able to perform an action that they would have performed regardless of the charitable benefits, while through this perceived action (which is actually inaction because the consumer has not taken any direct action in regards to consumer responsibility) they are actually inactive.  It is this combination of the aesthetic value of the beautifully crafted Starbucks salted caramel macchiato and the political action of participating in a charity (thereby taking a stand in the political ideals of such a charity) that exemplifies Robbins’ idea of sinking back into ourselves.  Through this transaction the consumer is able to be the humanitarian and the private consumer. 

            The other portion of Robbins’ article that I found particularly interesting is the idea that as consumers, we don’t want to know the conditions under which our products were produced when we know that the means of production are ethically questionable; yet, when the product holds artistic value, the originator of such a product is important to the consumer.  This can be understood by examining an IPhone.  The artistic integrity of an IPhone used to be synonymous with Steve Jobs.  This is not to say that Steve Jobs personally crafted each IPhone, but that Steve Jobs approved that IPhone as a product, as a brand that can be trusted.  Although Jobs died nearly three years ago, his professional reputation with still associated with the product.  The social conscious is able to eradicate any guilt as consumers of IPhones because their origin of their IPhone is associated with Steve Jobs as opposed to the various foreign countries that manufacture and assemble the various parts and the condition under which these products were produced*.  The IPhone is particularly interesting when fit into Robbins’ idea of not forgetting the human producer because with each IPhone there is a note that says IPhones are designed in California.  This note is positively true.  IPhones are designed in California, allowing the consumer to associate their product with a human producer (Steve Jobs) and shrink back into themselves (“made in the USA”); yet, this product is produced elsewhere, designed in California, but produced globally.  This simple note along with Jobs’ association with IPhone allows the consumer to “live with the voices inside [their] heads” and choose the details that are prevalent to their internal voices.

  *If you are interested in information regarding the manufacturing of IPhones: http://ipod.about.com/od/glossary/f/where-is-ipod-manufactured.htm