Rubbish Has No Value Analysis

'Rubbish has no value '. Identify the arguments for and against this view

This essay attempts to identify arguments for and against the view that rubbish has no value. The arguments and their respective concepts and theories identified herein are related to a central theme of rubbish, wastefulness and affluence within a consumer society - all presented in Chapter 1 and 2 of Making Social Lives (Hetherington, 2009). Primarily by using Thompson 's 'rubbish theory ', focus is given to how values ascribed to objects change over time and place through the category of rubbish (Brown, 2009, p.122). Quantitative and qualitative evidence, that suggest and support each opposing argument that rubbish has no value, are identified mainly within
By expanding on the concepts within the statement 'rubbish has no value ' it can be elaborated to: 'after their original use, objects perceived as rubbish are deemed lacking in any further function or useful property '. Value can be defined as 'how useful something is, or the extent to which something is regarded as worthwhile. ' (Brown, 2009, p.105). Wastefulness is an action or process that uses things up for no good purpose and is a result of mass consumption in a consumer society (Brown, 2009, p.106), especially increased by excess attainment of materials resulting from higher affluence (Brown, 2009, p.112). Finally, Thompson 's 'rubbish theory ' brings these concepts together in a conceptual framework where he explains rubbish functions as an important role by means of its possible revaluation as it changes through being transient objects (value tends to fall over time) to durable objects (value increases over time) (Brown, 2009,
Table 1 and Figure 1 and 2 from Chapter 3 of Making Social Lives (Brown, 2009, p.110-112) display some quantitative evidence of increased disposable income with increased affluence by the relation of increased expenditure on services with increased disposable household income. The fact that this relationship has been shown to be a factor of increased wastefulness and rubbish, suggests and argues members of a consumer society see no value in objects they have obtained and used up for their original purpose and function. Thompson 's theory says this is the accumulation of 'transient objects ' that lose value over time (Brown, 2009, p.123). A simple look at Table 2 from Chapter 3 of Making Social Lives (Defra, cited in Brown, 2009, p.117) shows from 1983/84 to 2006/07, on the first two rows, that the overall household rubbish not recycled compared to the overall rubbish that was recycled was significantly higher, and this can be interpreted as a snippet of evidence that members of a consumer society, mass consuming, ascribe significantly little value-and some members zero value-to objects they accumulate after they have been used up for their original function/purpose: 'rubbish has no value