Anti-consumerism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Anti-consumerism refers to the socio-political movement against consumerism, the equation of personal happiness with consumption and the purchase of material possessions. Consumerism is a term used to describe the effects of the market economy on the individual. Concern over the treatment of consumers has spawned substantial activism, and the incorporation of consumer education into school curricula.
Anti-consumerist activism draws parallels with environmental activism, anti-globalization, and animal-rights activism in its condemnation of modern corporations, or organizations that pursue a solely economic interest.
In recent years, there have been an increasing number of books (Naomi Klein's 2000 No Logo for example) and films (e.g. The Corporation & Surplus), popularizing an anti-corporate ideology to the public.
Opposition to economic materialism comes primarily from two sources: religion and social activism. Some religions assert materialism interferes with connection between the individual and the divine, or that it is inherently an immoral lifestyle. Some notable individuals, such as Francis of Assisi, Ammon Hennacy, and Mohandas Gandhi claimed spiritual inspiration led them to a simple lifestyle. Social activists believe materialism is connected to war, greed, Anomie, crime, environmental degradation, and general social malaise and discontent. Fundamentally, their concern is that materialism is unable to offer a raison d'être for human existence.
Contents |
[edit] Background
Anti-consumerism is often associated with criticism of consumption, starting with Karl Marx and Thorstein Veblen, but according to Veblen's Theory of the Leisure Class consumerism can be traced back to the first human civilizations. Consumerism can also denote economic policies associated with Keynesian economics, and, in an abstract sense, refer to the belief that the free choice of consumers should dictate the economic structure of a society (cf. producerism}.
[edit] Politics and society
Many anti-corporate activists believe the rise of large-business corporations poses a threat to the legitimate authority of nation states and the public sphere.[citation needed] They feel corporations are invading people's privacy, manipulating politics and governments, and creating false needs in consumers. They state evidence such as invasive advertising adware, spam, telemarketing, massive corporate campaign contributions in political elections, interference in the policies of sovereign nation states (Ken Saro-Wiwa), and endless global news stories about corporate corruption (Enron, for example).
Anti-consumerism protesters point out that the main responsibility of a corporations is to answer only to shareholders, giving human rights and other issues almost no consideration[citation needed] The management does have a primary responsibility to their shareholders, since any philanthropic activities that do not directly serve the business could be deemed to be a breach of trust. This sort of financial responsibility means that multi-national corporations will pursue strategies to intensify labor and reduce costs. For example, they will attempt to find low wage economies with laws which are conveniently lenient on human rights, the natural environment, trade union organization and so on (see, for example, Nike, Inc.).
An important contribution to the critique of consumerism has been made by French philosopher Bernard Stiegler, arguing modern capitalism is governed by consumption rather than production, and the advertising techniques used to create consumer behavior amount to the destruction of psychic and collective individuation. The diversion of libidinal energy toward the consumption of consumer products, he argues, results in an addictive cycle of consumption[1], leading to hyper consumption, the exhaustion of desire, and the reign of symbolic misery.
[edit] Conspicuous consumption
Marx argued the capitalist economy leads to the fetishization and devaluing the worth of goods and services and instead focusing on its market price[citation needed].
In many critical contexts,[citation needed]. the term describes the tendency of people to identify strongly with products or services they consume, especially with commercial brand names and obvious status-enhancing appeal, e.g. an expensive automobile or jewelry. It is a pejorative term which most people deny, having some more specific excuse or rationalization for consumption other than the idea that they are "compelled to consume". A culture that has a high amount of consumerism is referred to as a consumer culture.
To those who embrace the idea of consumerism, these products are not seen as valuable in themselves, but rather as social signals that allow them to identify like-minded people through consumption and display of similar products. Few would yet go so far, though, as to admit that their relationships with a product or brand name could be substitutes for healthy human relationships that sometimes lack in a dysfunctional modern society.
The older term conspicuous consumption described the United States in the 1960s, but was soon linked to larger debates about media influence, culture jamming, and its corollary productivism.
The term and concept of conspicuous consumption originated at the turn of the 20th century in the writing of economist Thorstein Veblen. The term describes an apparently irrational and confounding form of economic behaviour. Veblen's scathing proposal that this unnecessary consumption is a form of status display is made in darkly humorous observations like the following:
- It is true of dress in even a higher degree than of most other items of consumption, that people will undergo a very considerable degree of privation in the comforts or the necessaries of life in order to afford what is considered a decent amount of wasteful consumption; so that it is by no means an uncommon occurrence, in an inclement climate, for people to go ill clad in order to appear well dressed.[1]
However, archaeologists have found evidense of conspicuous consumption over several millennium, thus, the worth of such a behavior is inherent in human behaviour (Renfrew and Bahn 2008). An extreme view[citation needed].[citation needed] is that over-consumption threatens emotional stabilization of the global population, and that behavioral health professionals need to document and analyze the large groups etiology developing subcultures of pathological self-medication (The Gin Crisis in London occurred because of bad living conditions). This is seen to have impacts far beyond the immediate consumer group. Civil planing then came to be borne. The concept flows[citation needed] from the theory of commodity fetishism — people experience relations between things as they do with relationships between people, e.g. between the cash in their wage packet and the shirt they want. The cash and the shirt appear to conduct social relations independently of the humans involved, determining who gets what by their in-built values. This leaves the person who earned the cash and the people who made the shirt ignorant of and alienated from their social relationship with each other. Anti-consumerist thought[citation needed] also makes the link between the relentless consumerism advocated by both governments and advertisers, and the continued degradation and destruction of the natural environment. In this aspect, the anti-consumerist standpoint overlaps somewhat with the environmental movement.
[edit] Consumerism and Advertising
Anti-consumerists believe advertising plays a huge role in human life by informing values and assumptions of the cultural system, deeming what is acceptable and determining social standards[2]. They declare that ads create a hyper-real world where commodities appear as the key to securing happiness. Anti-consumerists cite studies that individuals believe their quality of life improves in relation to social values that lie outside the capability of the market place. Therefore, advertising attempts to equate the social with the material by utilizing images and slogans to link commodities with the real sources of human happiness, such as meaningful relationships. Ads are then a detriment to society because they tell consumers that accumulating more and more possessions will become bring them closer to self-actualization, or the concept of a complete and secure being. “The underlying message is that owning these products will enhance our image and ensure our popularity with others”[3].
Anti-consumerists claim that in a consumerist society, advertising images disempower and objectify the consumer [4]. By stressing individual power, choice and desire, advertising falsely implies the control lies with the consumer. Because anti-consumerists believe commodities only supply short-term gratification, they detract from a sustainably happy society. Further, advertisers have resorted to new techniques of capturing attention, such as the increased speed of ads and product placements[5]. In this way, commercials infiltrate the consumerist society and become an inextricable part of culture. Anti-consumerists condemn advertising because constructs a simulated world that offers fantastical escapism to consumers, rather than reflecting actual reality. They further argue that ads depict the interests and lifestyles of the elite as natural, cultivating a deep sense of inadequacy among viewers[6]. They denounce use of beautiful models because they glamorize the commodity beyond reach of the average individual.
[edit] Criticism of Anti-consumerism
 |
This article's Criticism or Controversy section(s) may mean the article does not present a neutral point of view of the subject. It may be better to integrate the material in such sections into the article as a whole. (September 2007) |
In 1999, the libertarian magazine Reason attacked anti-consumerism, claiming Marxist academics are repackaging themselves as anti-consumerists. James Twitchell, a professor at the University of Florida and popular writer, referred to anti-consumerism arguments as "Marxism Lite."[2]
[edit] See also
[edit] Notes
- ^ The Theory of the Leisure Class, 1899
- ^ [ Advertising and the End of the World. Dir. Sut Jhally. Perf. Sut Jhally. DVD. Media Education Foundation , 1997.]
- ^ [Tim Kasser, “The High Price of Materialism”, 2002, p.9, Achorn Graphic Services]
- ^ [ Joseph D. Rumbo, “Consumer Resistance in a World of Advertising Clutter: The Case of Adbusters”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol.19(2), February 2002]
- ^ [ Advertising and the End of the World. Dir. Sut Jhally. Perf. Sut Jhally. DVD. Media Education Foundation , 1997.]
- ^ [ Joseph D. Rumbo, “Consumer Resistance in a World of Advertising Clutter: The Case of Adbusters”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol.19(2), February 2002]
[edit] References
- Bakan, Joel (2004) The Corporation.
- Elizabeth Chin (2001) Purchasing Power: Black Kids and American Consumer Culture University of Minnesota Press ISBN 978-0816635115
- Hertz, N (2002) Silent Takeover: Global Capitalism and the Death of Democracy. Arrow.
- Klein, Naomi (2000). No Logo. Vintage Canada. ISBN 0-676-97282-9.
- Monbiot, G (2001) Captive State: The Corporate Takeover of Britain. Pan.
[edit] External links
- Fifty Possible Ways to Challenge Over-Commercialism by Albert J. Fritsch, SJ, PhD
- The Rebel Sell, This Magazine, By Joseph Heath and Andrew Potter
- 25 Years of Monitoring the Multinationals
- The story of stuff by Annie Leonard
