Myth of the Car

Below is a text borrowed from 'forums' that we maintain for classes here. This one is for the "French Theory" course I took  in Fall 2012, led by Prof. Yue Zhuo. We read Mythologies and had to write on Mythologies around us. I chose to write on the myth of the car.

The discussion has trailing comments by the professor as well as student (s).

---
Anuj Daga:

In cities like Mumbai, where density of people is very high and everyone is struggling for space, owning a car goes much beyond owning a vehicle that takes you from point A to point B. A city stuck in traffic, a city with not enough road for the pedestrian and the public transport, a city with no space to park and petrol prices shooting up, it should almost discourage any person considering to buy a car. Still, we see that urban development plans for more layers of fly-overs above existing roads and developers sell apartments with ‘extra parking space’, banks extend loans for cars, and newer car companies promote their purchase through flexible installment plans. Between this tension of need and luxury, the car assumes a new meaning.

I have always wondered why do cars have four doors when buses have only two? Why do automobile companies introduce bigger and bigger cars (read private modes of transport) when public transport in the city carries almost twice the people than it can accommodate and the city roads have no space to take up more cars? Over some time now, I have realized that the car has become a symbol of luxury. With an individual door for everyone to access and constantly increasing leg space to stretch, the car wants to be your new home. Luxury dictates need. The size of the car is a scale of the potential of luxury that you can afford.

As a reaction to the fact that the car could only be afforded by those who have a lot of money, where the car had come to construct your identity as a ‘rich’ person, TATA motors in India introduced the NANO car in 2009 which was to be a vehicle that even the ordinary mass could afford – it was targeted at Rs. 1 lakh (US $ 1800). TATA claimed that it would make the car affordable for all. It was expected that there would be a huge demand for the car by the middle class whose spending potential was modest as compared to the upper class who owned cars. The Nano being offered at a modest price of Rs. 1 lakh took an appearance of the local street cab (the auto rickshaw) and was a much light-weight car. Its production base ran into some complications with acquisition of land for setting up the factory and hence it opened up the policy of ‘placing order’. Initially there was a lot of interest in purchasing the car, for those who genuinely wanted to invest in a vehicle for everyday purposes. But the sales of the Nano decreased dramatically after the first few production runs.

It appeared that Nano didnot fulfil the middle class aspiration of being identified as the owner of a car. In the neighbourhoods of a city like Mumbai, you are often known by the quality and bigness of the car you own. The car defines your identity and social standing. It talks about your image and becomes a signifier of your way of life. Further the number of cars talks about your economic status and fetches you respect. In such way, your car starts owning you more than you own it.

Owners of Nano are frowned upon. Those who feared that the Nano would dramatically increase the traffic on streets by its virtue of being so affordable to masses didnot anticipate that the story will be an anticlimax. People crave to have larger cars, at no cost Nano, and they label it as a light, unsafe and unaesthetic car although it fits the context of the city perfectly – it is small (thus uses less parking space), slow (uses less petrol and adjusts with the pace of the city) and perfect for singles driving on the road. But unfortunately, it doesnot fit in the conventional image of corporate businesses and those who attend meetings at five star hotels. The car had reduced to, or extended its existence to its image.

It is thus I find Barthes’ Mythologies apt to talk about the new value system the car has generated.

---
Yue Zhuo: 
The story of Nano is very telling, well recounted. Thanks. What's in confilct here is the value of utility and the value of "conspicuous consumption" (Veblen). Perfect transition to today's class.

--
Zhiyan Yang:

Thanks Anuj for the Nano example. A rough examination of this "myth of car" with Barthes's double-layer sign formula: car in the context of your example has been deprived of its original "meaning" as a vehicle, and new "signification" of wealth and social status is instilled in the "form." But who creates the myth this time? The middle-class (it is not quite the same with Barthes's French bourgeoisie, is it?)? or a collaboration of the car sellers and consumers? How does this myth spread? Some form of nation-wide power must have something to do with the creation of myth here.

Thanks again!

---
Anuj Daga:
It was interesting to think of your questions, some of which co incide with those that were raised in the class today. I have been thinking of these too. Especially on the idea of 'bourgeoiesie'. I always kept asking my friends what do they mean when they used this term. I always got new answers.

I read Marx, Raymond Williams (Keywords) and discussed with people, but never understood the context of France entirely. The French theory class has been helpful in understanding the context in which all these texts were written. So I am able to make some connections with those loose understandings.

One of the best ways I like to understand the bourgeoisie is that they are the asipring middle class. They are quite materialistic. Now these can again be complex phrases. I will try to elaborate. What I mean by aspiration is a desire to be like the upper class, so there is a form of imitation of something that you aspire to be or want. This imitation of the original want, falling in a changed economic bracket creates a new materiality. It is also when the original is studied or reproduced as an image.

I think the bourgeoisie consume this new materiality, this new image...
Another question raised in the seminar was "what is wrong with the bourgeoisie?" - If I may say, the removal of rationality from the use of an object, its reduction to an image and its altered value is something that creates discomfort within intellectuals towards the bourgeoisie. To Marx's 'use value' and 'exchange value', Baudrillard Jean added 'symbolic value' and 'sign value' as meta systems through which the materiality of the bourgeoisie is created. Perhaps the warped rationality through which the bourgeoisie consume is ideologically disturbing. Probably that may to some extent answer the question?

I had a lot of things in mind on the introduction of new appliances in the post war period in the French household. An intersting thing to know would be that a lot of technology geared towards defense of nations during the war created corollaries of inventions. Many of our household items were actually invented for wars. The washing machines, vacuum cleaners, etc. are actually parts of larger war weapons which find place as docile domestic equipments in our homes today! Historian Beatriz Colomina talking about this kind of new domesticity in  one of her publications.

However, perhaps, it may have also become important to dismantle the huge amount of intellectual and economic investment that went into making the mega-devices of war into everyday consumable products. The post war saw these machines in a completely new way  and appropriated technology for innovative purposes...

I also liked the question on 'who produces myth' and 'how does it spread?"- And it will need a fairly deeper reflection to answer that.

But today's discussion was very interesting. Thanks to all for these doubts and questions.

---
Yue Zhuo:
Good to read the exchange between you too. This is the type of "forums" I was hoping to see..

We talked a little about "leveling" yesterday in class.The Nano example was very much both an example of wanting to be like others ("aspring to be bourgeois" as Anuj puts it), and at the same time the desire of not wanting to be like others (if everyone can have this inexpensive car, then I want something better). It is both a compliance to social homogeneity and the desire for distinction).

Who is the creator of the "myth" is an interesting question. If I find time tomorrow, I will bring up the topic of reader/author.