Consumerism as a Social Act

[논둑길맨발로]

Consumerism as a Social Act

A Left-wing Defense of Consumerism

by Tom Bailey / November 29th, 2013

In recent years, many segments of the Left have adopted the politics of anti-consumerism. It perhaps becomes even more pronounced around this time of the year, firstly with the advent of what is known as ‘black Friday’ and then with the run up to Christmas. The Left however, should be celebrating the mass abundance of consumerism, and recognise that attacks on consumerism are elitist, and that consumerism itself is often a social act.

The Anti-consumerist generally views the purchase of consumer goods with thinly veiled contempt for the consumerist passions of the proles, who are supposedly tricked into buying stuff they don’t need. Or more sophisticatedly, consumerism is viewed as creating an anatomized society, breaking down relations between humans, leading us to all becoming atomized consumers.

Anti-consumerist politics is little more than patronizing liberalism. The anti-consumerist views the consumer as an idiot, a zombie devoid of ability to think beyond the simple desire to buy. According to the critic of consumerism, the worker does not really need or particularly want the latest iPod or clothing item, he or she has been duped into thinking so. The anti-consumerist by thinking like this reveals his elitism. He has elevated himself above the crowd, above the great mass of people and believes he has identified the real everyday wants, needs and desires of everyone. He assumes he knows what really will bring you joy or happiness, and he has concluded it isn’t a new pair of trainers.

The mass act of buying goods, we are told, is inherently individualistic. Consumerism supposedly atomizes society. It turns us all into beings alienated from each other, only concerned with owning or buying the latest trinkets.

Consumerism, however, is an entirely social act. The benefits a person gains from consuming something cannot be determined or calculated by market forces. When someone purchases a new item of clothing, the value from wearing it cannot be seen anymore in terms of exchange value; the use cannot be quantified. The value lies in feelings your new purchase creates between you and others, between yourself and your friends, lover, or family. The act of consumption creates for you no gain in monetary profit, only ‘social profit’. The gain of a new item of clothing is the social bonds it creates. The consumerist act of buying new clothes is to portray oneself as ‘good’ or ‘nice’ and such for a close one, or even just strangers on the street. To the cold rational and calculating economist of capitalism such considerations are futile and irrational. Of course most consumerists do not only buy clothes to meet the approval of their current or prospective boss. Consumers purchase clothes in order to present themselves towards others, be they friends, family, or stranger, for no identifiable monetary gain. Consumerism is an act to create or recreate social relationships.

In Against Thrift, James Livingston argues that consumerism ‘turns you inside out’. Shopping is not a solitary experience where only the individual is taken into account. When buying new clothes, you try them on in anticipation of how they will be viewed by others, so according to Livingstone ‘you are already seeing yourself from the outside in, as if you were another person’. By trying on clothes to purchase the consumer is anticipating how those around them (society) will view them. The anti-consumerist attempts to portray consumerism as an individualistic act does not make sense here. For an individualistic act is not, as consumerism is, something that requires you to position yourself in different social settings and from the viewpoint of others – the exact thing that consumerism, in regards to clothing, requires. The real individualism would be a shunning of consumerist clothing habit, without a care for how your clothes appear to others.

Left wing politics should aim for and celebrate mass abundance. The anti-consumerist starts from an elitist and patronizing position. Capitalism should be criticized for its method of production, not for allowing the social act of consumption. Capitalism should be challenged for not producing enough, not for producing too much. Any post-capitalist world must be one of mass abundance.

Tom Bailey is a graduate student and a writer from London, UK. Follow him on Twitter @tbaileybailey. Read other articles by Tom.

This article was posted on Friday, November 29th, 2013 at 10:51am and is filed under Capitalism, Consumer Advocacy.

http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/11/consumerism-as-a-social-act/

Against Thrift

4 Replies

James Livingston, Against Thrift: Why Consumer Culture is Good for the Economy, the Environment, and Your Soul

James Livingston has published a timely and provocative book in Against Thrift. He is not an economist but teaches history at Rutgers, and his argument is basically that everything you think you know about economic growth is wrong.

Both Democrats and Republicans believe business is the engine of economic growth. They only differ on how many tax breaks to give it. Livingston argues that this fundamental axiom of all modern economic policy is dead wrong! Technological advances grow with the economy, so companies do not have to reinvest to grow because they are able to squeeze more productivity out of fewer workers. The tax breaks we give large corporations contribute to huge profits that companies then invest in increasingly speculative and risky financial instruments – sliced and dices chimeras like those that contributed to the Great Recession in late 2008.

He goes on to argue that history shows the real driver of economic growth to be consumption. Just our tax policy contributed to the economic crash, it is the solution to our recovery, but only if we break with the “wisdom” of Washington. We need to rejigger the tax code so that corporations have smaller profits and average citizens have more income to take home and thus spend.

After concluding his economic argument, Livingston closes the book in a couple of chapters that argue for the ethics of consumption. Our parents and grandparents told us to save for a rainy day. Why? The author does not exactly say we should have no savings, but he does make a case that there is nothing wrong with products that contribute to our enjoyment of life. We should take joy in giving gifts and receiving them, learn to truly enjoy food, and in short become consumers of refined palettes and voracious appetites. Though some might say consumerism is the cause of our current environmental and health crisis, in a rather oddly-situated chapter on the obesity epidemic, Livingston tries to show that learning to truly enjoy the rituals consumer culture affords us – the act of preparing a fine meal and eating it with friends – makes us less inclined toward the kind of junk that is killing us. Our expanding waistlines are the most visible effects critics of consumer culture point to, by dispelling their arguments about fat, Livingston hopes to show that the assumptions of critics do not necessarily hold up in other areas.

On the whole, I think this book is worth reading, but maybe borrow it from a library or get a used copy. This book is useful because the author has gathered evidence to support and somewhat update Keynesian economics. Nonetheless, much of Livingston’s argument is not original, and the original parts of his argument are not very convincing.

As a Christian theologian who thinks a lot about the economy, Livingston’s defense of consumer culture is a helpful reminder that this world and all that is in it, including what we produce, is good. Christian economics are not all asceticism all the time. On the other hand, Livingston’s defense of consumerism at times becomes a defense of hedonism. His claim, for instance, that more consumerism is the cure to the obesity epidemic, or impending environmental catastrophe, is just not very convincing. As a result, I do not see how he cannot fall into the same trap that ensnares investment bankers and business tycoons. We Americans seem to assume that wealth = money because money = stuff. I do not see Livingston rise above this stupid math.

I think theology can help him. When he does talk about the consumer ritual of preparing and eating a meal, he hits upon the Christian belief in the goodness of matter and our eschatological hope. Eating can be an immensely holy act. All feasts in the name of Christ anticipate the joy of the life to come, but feasting is always bordered by a time of fasting. Fasting serves as a reminder that this world is not as good as it could be, and that we are the cause of its fall. It helps keep us from confusing the means of consumption with its ends: Joy is not the things we consume but in the lives, loves, and friendships those things enrich.

http://www.davidjdunn.com/2012/02/09/against-thrift-by-james-livingston/