Stores as Modern Symbolic Form

While this is going to sound broad at first, I definitely think stores are a modern version of symbolic form. To help make this more specific, when I say stores I really mean big “brand-name” stores, such as Target and Walmart. Even if you yourself do not shop at either of these places, I think it’s safe to assume that you know what they are and what sort of products they offer.  They have become integrated cultural terms that almost anyone can understand. Also, whether we admit it or not, there are generally stereotypes that we all apply to people depending on where they do their shopping.  Walmart is probably the most notorious for this, thanks to websites such as peopleofwalmart.com (warning, that site can tend to be a bit graphic). Even though people of all sorts of socio-economic backgrounds do their shopping at Walmart, it cannot escape the stereotype that society at large has bestowed upon it.

Another point showing how stores can be regarded as a symbolic form can be seen in the loyalty of customers, particularly for these larger “brand-name” type corporations.  For example, it has been my general experience that most people either shop at Target or Walmart and they tend to be extremely loyal and defensive of their respective stores.  I personally am a Target shopper and one of my best friends is a Walmart shopper.  Whenever we get into discussions about shopping and where we think it is most convenient and fairly priced, we both end up lumping ourselves into the larger symbolic form of Target and Walmart shoppers and begin to speak as if we were talking for all of our fellow shoppers.  Even though we barley know a fraction of the overall Target and Walmart shoppers in this country, and for all we know some of them might equally like both places, we feel as if we are entitled to speak for everyone as a whole just because we ourselves are customers.  We feel as if we are a part of this larger invisible group, and we want to help defend and promote these places, even though we ourselves do not work for the companies and have no real tangible incentives.

I think this idea can be best illustrated with the Wegmans vs. Price Chopper debate.  If you are from Western, NY than you probably feel a great love and pride for Wegmans.  There really is no better place to do your grocery shopping on Earth than at a Wegmans grocery store.  Why then, is such a magnificent NY originated grocery store not found consistently throughout the entire state?  Why is is that if you drive 4 hours toward Albany you’ll suddenly end up in the realm of Price Chopper, a sadly Wegmans-less land?  As shocking as this may seem to a Western New Yorker, people in the Capital region, at least from my experience, tend to be just as loyal to Price Chopper as we are toward Wegmans. These loyalties are so intense that there are no Price Choppers in our area of the state, Wegmans keeps them out, and there are no Wegmans in the Capital region because Price Chopper keeps them out.  While I’m sure there are a lot of politics behind this, I think the simple fact of the matter is that Wegmans shoppers probably would not shop at a Price Chopper and Price Chopper customers would probably not shop at a Wegmans.  Both groups of shoppers has preconceived ideas about each store, thanks to the larger symbolic form at work, and I think this tends to keep them loyal to their respective grocery stores.