Much has been written and said about the tumult at the Mayfair Mall on January 2.  Commentators have argued the theft and destruction grew out of, among other things, the general rebelliousness of teenagers, deep-seated racial tensions, and/or colliding urban and suburban subcultures.  All these arguments have validity to them, but the very nature of the Mayfair Mall itself may also have played a role in the disturbances.

Mayfair epitomizes the modern shopping complex.  It has more sales per square foot than any other shopping complex in the metropolitan area.  A staggering 16 million shoppers pass through the mall annually, making Mayfair the busiest mall in all of Wisconsin.  With its flashing signage, swooping escalators, and elaborate display windows, Mayfair is a striking shrine devoted to late capitalism’s excessive consumption.

The central belief at Mayfair and hundreds of comparable shrines is that the purchase of goods and experiences will lead to personal happiness.

However, this belief turns out to be fragile.  For starters, consumption or the possibility of consumption has a way of darkening the line between haves and have-nots.  Consumers who are teenagers, belong to minority groups, or come from the center-city often cannot find or afford what they want.  Then, too, purchases are frequently defective or do not last.  Even if the goods and experiences are what the consumers wanted, the resulting amount of happiness falls far short of was promoted and anticipated.  The harshest critics of consumer capitalism in fact go so far as to say the promise of happiness through consumption is fundamentally a lie.

Bearing in mind what a place like Mayfair is, what it promises, and how often promises are broken, should we be surprised that discontent festers within the shrine’s walls?  Should we be surprised that frustration can become anger and that this anger can in turn lead to tumult?