The Festival Tent: Bargain, Shelter and Discard

Introduction
There is little doubt that festival tents have significant environmental implications. Annually, an estimated 250,000 tents are abandoned at music festivals in the UK alone, with an average of 50,000 tents left at the Danish Roskilde festival. The majority of these discarded tents end up in landfills. If the average tent weighs 3.5 kg, it is equivalent to discarding 8,750 straws or 250 plastic cups, according to The Association of Independent Festivals (2019) To
comprehend the scale, it is noteworthy that an average fes:val tent has been estimated to possess a carbon footprint of approximately 25-35 kg carbon dioxide, equivalent to charging 1,400 smartphones (Julien, 2019; KnowCarbon, n.d.).
Goals & Methods
Employing an Actor-Network Theory (ANT) inspired framework (Latour, 2007), this paper argues that the festival tent is emblematic of the complex and evolving relationship between waste and value in contemporary western society. Firstly, the festival tent serves as a prism through which the capitalist logic becomes exposed, thriving on a low-margin, high-turnover ethos, nurtured by a disposable mindset. As part of annual festival package offers, bargain value is attributed to the festival tent, extensively advertised in promotional materials.
Secondly, the festival tent showcases a product life cycle so brief that even mayflies must marvel, and manufacturers cheer in the background. The price is low and the quality so inferior, that consumers do not care or do not need to take care of the product. With zippers malfunctioning, tent fabric so fragile that it is prone to easy damage, and stakes' tips falling off at the slightest disturbance, the festival tent itself affords (Norman, 1999) no one to care. 'Who cares'; it is an integral part of the festival's liminality (Tuner 1969) and carnivalesque (Bakh:n, 1984) atmosphere and joyous mentality, blending perfectly together with a laissez faire economy.
Arguably, the festival tent also harbors potential for its own re-valuation. As a physical and existential shelter (Kracauer, 1998), it provides refuge from weather, people, sensory stimuli, and a much-needed (thinking) break. The thin tent fabric offers a sense of security, privacy, and seclusion, despite the fact that the tent easily is torn, cut, burned, or ripped open. The tent also marks territory on a festival ground without obvious borders, and it is associated rituals of conquering land and manifestations of communities, framed by tent camps scattered on the festival site.
Conclusion
In less than a week, the festival tent transitions from a retail commodity to a community base and existential shelter, providing protection from the weather, sensory overload, and other people. In both cases it is valued, however the logic behind the perceived benefits differs considerable. Eventually, the festival tent is discarded and left with indifference. Few festival goers seem to lose sleep or mourn over abandoned festival tents; they have been deemed worthless.
Further work
Examining the production of the festival tents and assessing the working conditions associated with a low- margin, high-turnover regime would be an interesting and natural addition to the sociological analysis of the festival tent.