Hummer Owners Take The High Ground, Defend Overconsumption With Patriotism
This debate has already taken so many faces, and been argued so many times, that I cannot hope to add much more to it.
But I’ll try anyway.
A new study published by the Journal of Consumer Research has found that many Hummer owners excuse their large, oft-unnecessary H1 and H2s by crying patriotism and quoting American ideals like individualism. So are Hummer owners the morally righteous in the debate of anti-consumerism versus over-consumption?
>> Interested in solar power? See if group discounts are available in your city
>> Don’t forget to: Sign up for our electric car interest list.
This is a debate that is a little close to home. Full disclosure; in March of 2007, yours truly wrote an article entitled Prius Outdoes Hummer In Environmental Damage. Long story short, I was wrong, used bad information, gained national attention, learned a valuable lesson about fact checking. The article has since been removed by my alma mater’s website, but it’s still out there for you to read if you are so inclined. I don’t recommend you waste your time, however.
Now with that out of the way, on to the article. Entitled “Consumer Identity Work as Moral Protagonism: How Myth and Ideology Animate a Brand- Mediated Moral Conflict,” the work was authored by Marius K. Luedicke (University of Innsbruck, Austria), Craig J. Thompson (University of Wisconsin–Madison), and Markus Giesler (York University, Toronto). They wanted to understand anti-consumerism sentiments towards brands like Starbucks, while at the same time delving into the starpower of over-consumption of brands like Hummer.
Hummer is no doubt a pariah for many of the ills of society. Take for example this webpage, Hummer Owners Suck. The Hummer brand lives up to its slogan, “Like Nothing Else”, with its exceptionally horrendous fuel consumption (I’ve heard as low as 8 MPG in the city, 12 on the highway), boorish looks, and excessive price. The owners’ apparently have an attitude problem too, though I would venture to say that depends on who you ask. Alternative fuel advocates especially hate the Hummer, citing it as a gas hog and everything that is wrong with American motor vehicles in general. But Hummer owners don’t see themselves like that at all.
Rather, they see themselves as something of American pioneers, taking all the attacks on their credibility in stride. According to the study, they often quoted founding American institutional myths like the “rugged individual” and the “boundless frontier.” All the anti-Hummer sentiment seems to have only further embedded, in their mind, the morality of their choice. It seems Hummer owners truly believe they are doing the right thing by buying a vehicle that they acknowledge they don’t really need.
The study goes on to say “Our analysis of the underlying American identity discourses revealed that being under siege by (moral) critics is an historically established feature of being an American. The moralistic critique of their consumption choices readily inspired Hummer owners to adopt the role of the moral protagonist who defends American national ideals.”
I’ve gone this far without imposing my opinion on this piece (I think, but someone will probably say otherwise). So I just want to end with this. I live in America, where people are still free to waste their money on frivolous toys like the Hummer H2. How someone who relies so heavily on imported oil could ever relate to a “rugged individual,” I don’t know, but I guess some people don’t pay attention at the gas pump. But it is their money to waste.
Boundless frontier? Yeah, ok, I can buy that — I’ve yet to see anyone take a Prius off-roading — but is over-paying for an SUV status symbol truly American? I guess that is up to the “individual.”
This opinion may not exactly fall in line with everybody in the alt-fuel community, but another advantage of living in America is the right to express yourself. Still, I am open to hearing your opinions in a lively, RESPECTFUL, debate.
Source: Eureka Alert | Picture: GM
You Might Also Like
The Numbers Are In: Ford F-250 Lariat Gets Worst Gas Mileage
Hummer Sale Falls Through; Is Hummer Too Toxic to Sell?
Fiat to Add Tiny, 2-Cylinder, Turbocharged, Natural Gas-Capable Engine to Lineup 
Fiat 500 Could be On Sale in the U.S. at the End Of 2010
September 22nd, 2009 at 11:49 am
Wow, I thought American car-patriotism was supposed to be associated with buying American cars. Last time I checked, HUMMER was owned by the Chinese. HMMWV owners should get their heads out of the sand — Cars are the old symbol of freedom, the new symbol is still emerging, but I’m putting my money on alternative energy. I’d like nothing better than for my country to be energy-independent, then we could really do as we pleased.
September 22nd, 2009 at 11:52 am
I’ve yet to see a Hummer with mud or really even any dirt on it. Maybe this is due to the pride they have in owning a hummer and they immediately wash it after any off-road excursion…but I wonder what the percentage of Hummer owners is that actually take their Hummer somewhere that is not paved???
And, I have taken a Prius down some less than ideal gravel roads, but I have to admit it wasn’t my Prius:)
September 22nd, 2009 at 12:04 pm
GM only recently agreed to sell Hummer to a Chinese construction company, and unless I am mistaken, the deal has yet to go through.
Hummers are constructed in South Bend, Indiana, though components for them come from the world over.
September 22nd, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Hi, I am one of the co-authors of this study. Let me add one point of clarification to the discussion. From our standpoint, the Hummer offers a window into more conservative political views get enacted. The boundless frontier traces back to the American exceptionalist idea that the United States is a land of divine providence that has been blessed with infinite resources. In conservative circles, you find that denial of anthropogenic climate change or peak oil is rampant. If you believe that the USA is God’s chosen land, then it is easy to resonate with “drill baby drill” solutions to the energy shortage. Conversely, if you think Americans need to curtail their lifestyle freedoms because of resource shortages, you are calling into question the belief in the nation’s divine providence. In sum, you can’t understand Hummer ownership without taking into account the legacy of American exceptionalism and conversely, the Hummer shows one concrete way in which AE gets put into practice by its devotees.
September 22nd, 2009 at 3:29 pm
I personally despise Hummer owners for my own personal reasons (wasteful, inefficient), and find the idea of ‘determined overconsumption as patriotic’ to be distasteful. During WWII, Americans didn’t keep throwing stuff away because it was old and useless, they recycled it into the things we needed to win the war. America was once efficient in the use of it’s resources and it was the patriotic thing to do. I see a Hummer currently as being very unpatriotic…I would have a different take on it if we didn’t import so much oil and didn’t send the mass amounts of money to countries that don’t like us very much. The rich are entitled to their extravagances, and there is a point when they have more dollars than sense, and they are free to spend it anyway they please. It just does not mean that I have to be impressed by it or envious. If they are going to perch themselves on a pedestal and flaunt their excesses, then they are going to have to take the criticisms from others they are exposing themselves to. I can’t fault GM for building Hummers, as they did sell, I can’t fault the people for buying them. I can apply my own moral code to both parties and disagree with their decisions to do so. I’ve always secretively hoped that gas taxes would rise substantially and hope that these same Hummer drivers keep rolling along…their contribution to society would be appreciated.
September 22nd, 2009 at 3:42 pm
I have no problem with people owning Hummers so long as they pay the full cost, including the cost of environmental damage. All we need is a nice big carbon tax — then everybody can feel morally superior.
September 22nd, 2009 at 5:49 pm
@Craig
Thanks, that’s probably the most succinct and honest explanation behind SUV ownership in a post-carbon world. I appreciate your explanation, coming from Canada, I feel like more of a steward of our natural resources than one who has a God-blessed obligation to expend them.
September 22nd, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Greg, If you would like energy independence, then all you have to do is get the anti-domestic-energy liberals in congress to authorize the use of the energy reserves that we have in Montana and the Dakotas. This would end our money transfer to those who don’t like us very much, create jobs in this country and allow us to develop renewable energy sources at a more leisurely and less costly pace. And whatever you think of this idea you still have to prove that American Petroleum releases more carbon into the air than middle eastern oil.
We could also follow the advice in the Audi diesel ads. Insist on American manufacturers supplying diesel engines in every vehicle line that they produce.
As far as global warming goes, it seems that even the head of the UN global warming commission has determined that the warming period is over for a long time to come. There is also speculation that the recent warming trend was caused not by carbon, but by the chemicals we put into the atmosphere in order to close the “hole in the ozone layer”.
September 22nd, 2009 at 7:00 pm
So owning a Hummer and feeling morally superior about it is like starting unnecessary wars and feeling morally superior about it: a character disorder.
America is not boundless – the historian Frederick Jackson Turner famously declared the frontier closed over a century ago.The sooner the nation gets over “American Exceptionalism,” the better. We’ve got to start taking responsibility for our actions.
Even if Hummer drivers were to pay the full cost of the carbon they generate, they are still abrogating their responsibility as drivers to other users of the streets, especially pedestrians. For awhile, auto manufacturers recognized their responsibility to minimize the harm their products caused, and were designing cars to minimize injury to pedestrians hit by their cars. That’s why hoods got lower, so that a hit pedestrian would go onto the hood rather than under the wheels. Not so with the Hummers (or any SUV for that matter) – they are quite literally in your face when they hit you.
September 22nd, 2009 at 7:08 pm
Adding to what I said above:
The headlights of Hummers and other SUVs are also higher than those of cars, shining in the eyes of those with reasonable-sized rides. that’s obnoxious, and wrong.
Call me a socialist, but I think that even us Americans have a responsibility to one another. Living in community is also a thread of the American mythos, and that requires some measure of responding to the needs of others. Choosing a vehicle that’s deliberately wasteful, obnoxious and dangerous to others is irresponsible.
September 22nd, 2009 at 7:28 pm
ChuckL paints an appealing picture – sure, we’d all like to think we can tell OPEC to go take a hike, and develop domestic jobs- but he is so wrong on so many points:
1. Nobody is saying that US-produced petroleum releases more carbon into the air than Middle-Eastern petroleum. Sulfur, maybe – depends on the oil field.
2. Oil is a finite resource. There is not enough of it left in US reserves to permanently make up for the present consumption of imported oil. And rather than make a shift to renewables at a more “leisurely and less costly pace,” we’d just ignore the problem until a catastrophic change demands an abrupt shift (just like last year’s financial meltdown).
3. Gotta respond to his global-warming denial after dinner. To be continued.
September 22nd, 2009 at 10:36 pm
Right-wing rhetoric has become all too predictable, almost schematic, and they need to be called on it. Do they all take the same classes in how to put out this stuff? With all due respect, and trying to keep it civil, ChuckL’s post has all the classic rhetorical attributes of right-wing misinformation, to use a mild term, and McCarthyism, to use a stronger one:
1. Right up front, throw a shot across the bow of those who object to your assertions by impugning their patriotism, but in a deniable way: “. . . the anti-domestic-energy liberals in Congress . . ”
2. Toss out a smoke bomb of straw men, accusations, misconceptions, obfuscations, half-false and wholly false assertions; repeat rumor and speculation; and disguise it all as common sense:
A. ChuckL says “even the head of the UN global warming commission has determined that the warming period is over for a long time to come.” Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, Chair of the UN’S Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has determined no such thing. He did tell delegates at the UN Summit on Climate Change on 26 August, “World on Track to Meet Worst Climate Change Projections.” He did not suggest that warming will stop there. Read it at “http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/climatechange/world-on-track-to-meet-worst-climate-change-projections.”
B. ChuckL refers to” speculation that the recent warming trend was caused not by carbon, but by the chemicals we put into the atmosphere in order to close the “hole in the ozone layer”. Who is doing this speculation? Chuck does not say. Chuck, we did not put chemicals into the atmosphere to close the hole. We phased out some common Ozone-Depleting Substances such as CFCs. HFCs, their replacements in refrigerators, air-conditioners and the like have less Global Warming Potential (a separate characteristic) than CFCs, which already have a much lower Global Warming Potential than CO2. Read about it, from an industry source no less, at: http://www.iifiir.org/en/doc/1010.pdf.
3. Put the onus on others to prove that your specious arguments are wrong:
“. . . whatever you think of this idea you still have to prove that American Petroleum releases more carbon into the air than middle eastern oil.”
4. Claim that responses are inadequately proven or sourced, even if your assertions were never based on fact in the first place. For this, I await.
5. When your lies are proven, call yours opponents elitist for knowing how to make reasoned and rational arguments.
5. Thereby, control the terms of the debate.
We cannot let national debates continue to be hijacked this way, whether it be about peak oil, alternative energy, health insurance reform, or our new president’s place of birth. We need to call them on it.
Chuck my man, you are not speaking the truth – but you have succeeded in hijacking my entire evening. Congratulations.
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:05 am
Christopher,
I’m guessing you quoted the same study about the Prius vs. Hummer as I did for an environmental newsletter I used to work on some time ago. Lesson learned indeed…
Kudos for the full disclosure.
September 23rd, 2009 at 9:55 am
Alright guys, I am going to play devils advocate here.
Are Hummer owners really consuming more than their “fair” share? They are, after all, paying out the butt for the gas they use, and at the end of the day, it is their money to waste. I live in CT, and there are plenty of Hummers here, but not nearly as much highway as say, California. Most Hummer driving therefore would be in city, at perhaps 8 mpg at best. That is a lot of fuel.
Also, even at its peak sales in 2003, 34,529 Hummers were sold. That…isn’t all that much really. Yeah, they are gas hogs and road hogs and the epitome of American excess, but only for a select few. I have a hard time begrudging a few thousand people their right to spend their money foolishly.
For the record, I have seen mud-covered Hummers. I’ve also seen them laden down with 50k worth of sound equipment light bars and televisions; I’m sure that truck doesn’t get driven everyday.
September 23rd, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Craig (co-author) –
As a Hummer Owner and avid off roader in Northern California, it think you just successfully described almost the entire off road, off highway community.
“Rugged Individualist” and our “boundless frontier” applies to every Jeep and 4WD Toyota, Buggy, Bronco, Blazer, Motorcycle, ATV, UTV enthusiasts.
Especially here in the West where there is still much to discover and do, that pretty much requires a four wheel drive vehicles.
If you haven’t seen a Hummer dirty, you don’t get out of LA much.
September 24th, 2009 at 9:30 am
Christopher,
Your devil’s advocate question is right on target. One of prominent counterarguments among our Hummer enthusiasts was that their critics were un-American in the specific sense of being hypocrites. For example, they questioned whether someone driving a Prius but living in a large McMansion and enjoying other aspects of the resource intensive American-way-of-life really had any moral ground to be casting stones at their choice of vehicles. Moving away from the specifics of the Hummer case, a study by an MIT engineering professor in 2007 found that Americans with the lowest energy usage still produced, on average, more than double the global per-capita carbon emission. So, much of our national contribution to climate change and resource depletion is built into the infrastructure of American society. Similarly, George Monbiot makes a compelling case that far more draconian changes in first world lifestyles will be needed to avert a climate change disaster. Conversely, trying to solve the problem while maintaining lifestyles built around personal transportation (even hybrids) only slows the pace toward imminent crisis. So, this inconsistency between structural realities and the rhetoric of save the world by driving a Prius is the cultural contradiction that supports Hummer owner’s American exceptionalist justifications. Sorry for the longish post but your question really hit on a central issue in the debates on climate change.
October 6th, 2009 at 6:25 am
Personally, I can see no real use case for Hummers outside the military & even there, am sure there are cheaper & more flexible options.
Regarding SUVs, I have one, but I live 750m above sea level in the Tatry Mountains, so is a necessity. However, can happily say I get a lot more than 8mpg out of my Hyundai.
When I lived in S London, it never ceased to amaze me at how many mothers drove these things around on roads teeming with pedestrians, the only use being to haul kids to school & back & the odd run to the supermarket … dumb.
A taxation system where urban owners of SUVs were penalised for carbon emissions would be a good thing in my opinion.