“CONSUMERISM, it must be noted, afflicts not merely the upper class in affluent societies but also the middle class and many in the working class. Large numbers of people across society believe that they work merely to make ends meet, but an examination of their shopping lists and closets reveals that they spend good parts of their income on status goods such as brand-name clothing, the “right” kind of car, and other assorted items that they don’t really need…
Limiting consumption is not a reflection of failure. Rather, it represents liberation from an obsession–a chance to abandon consumerism and focus on … well, what exactly? What should replace the worship of consumer goods?
The kind of culture that would best serve a Maslowian hierarchy of needs is hardly one that would kill the goose that lays the golden eggs–the economy that can provide the goods needed for basic creature comforts. Nor one that merely mocks the use of consumer goods to respond to higher needs. It must be a culture that extols sources of human flourishing besides acquisition. The two most obvious candidates to fill this role are communitarian pursuits and transcendental ones.
Read more here: http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=80661c9c-9c63-4c9e-a293-6888fc845351&p=1
From: The New Republic, Spent by Amitai Etzioni, America after consumerism. Post Date Wednesday, June 17, 2009. Amitai Etzioni served as president of the American Sociological Association and is the author of The Active Society.
The photograph is of a piece of pottery from Indonesia. According to Amitai Etzioni: Before the spirit of capitalism swept across much of the world, neither work nor commerce were highly valued pursuits–indeed, they were often delegated to scorned minorities such as Jews. For centuries in aristocratic Europe and Japan, making war was a highly admired profession. In China, philosophy, poetry, and brush painting were respected during the heyday of the literati.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Everybody wants an upgrade, regardless what it is. A needs society is just a subsistence society, the wants society is what people work for the upgrades.
And look how that has improved life around the world.
It is a bit fatuous to be comparing attitudes to work exhibited by priviledged elites over time. Yes, they may well have valued poetry and painting over work but that is because they had no need to work. Ask an unemployed third world day labourer how he values work and it will be as a synonym for survival.
And in the real world people move up, down, in and out of Maslows heirarchy numerous times in a single day. Their supply of key, behaviour shaping hormones can be fundamentally altered by a single person entering or leaving a room which can, in turn, alter their motivation from that of a secure, dominant self actualiser to a cautious, passive supporter. A Walter Mitty at work can become a ruthless nazi to his dog (or wife) when he gets home.
One very interesting angle on the changing mix of behaviours is the effects of increased purchasing power, and political influence, by women. Any cursory glance at the respective clothing habits of men and women will reveal a significantly stronger leaning towards image, appearance, and symbolism on the part of women compared to men.
Some men may need to continually upgrade their cars as a status good but compared to the need for image goods like new kitchens, bathrooms, furniture and above all, clothing, women, in general, are seriously sick puppies. Single men can be satisfied with some incredibly “humble” domestic circumstances that few women would be seen dead with. Status is much more of a mating influence for women than it is for men. And if we look at who the ultimate decision maker is in the purchase of the major consumer status items, it clearly has little to do with a “Y” chromosome. And it would be a very interesting body of research that could determine whether consumerism is a mere association with emancipation and increased female spending power or is actually a major outcome of it.
Who drives the desire for a bigger house in a better street? The husband who needs to please his wife? Or the wife who pleases herself to show off her status? Which comes first, his boat or her new kitchen?
Criticism of ‘consumerism’ is really criticism of a capitalistic democratic social structure; expression of consumerism is individuality constrained by what has social cachet; the irony is the elitists who scorn what the hoi poloi are buying, usally in response to what a live-vicariously-through group such as Hollywood are doing, are themselves guilty of this same value transference; one only has to look at the refeverence towards antiques; most antiques are objects of utility or frivolity that now have esteem and value beyond any intrinsic worth then or now.
On a more fundamental level limiting consumerism is an arrogation of rights through moral prescription; this is anathema to a democracy where morality, beyond a basic criminal code, is not necessary. Any society where consumerism is constrained by moral imperative will have oppressed technological, educational, social and economic process; the obvious example is strict Islamic societies.
The alternatives such as communitarianism, or altruism, and transcendentalism, or solipsism, have had their deficiencies described by G.B. Shaw in Major Barbara and the life of Timothy Leary, or any addict. Altruism is a necessary because of the inherent defects of democratic capitalism and solipsism is an inevitable result of the failings of some of the individuals living in such a society. Both are unavoidable and preferable to any alternative because democratic capitalism is the best form of society humans have.
On an existential level consumerism is a valid symbol of both the emphemeral nature of humanity and its creations and the attempt by humans to resist entropy; in this respect inbuilt obsolecence is a distortion of consumerism whereas the extended warranty is consumerism at its best.
Consumerism basically is fun; this why wowsers like Clive Hamilton rail against it; and it is why AGW at heart is wowserism; humans have been having too good a time with the energy abundance of fossil fuels; and just like too much indulgence can produce a real hang-over the threat of AGW is the imaginary hang-over to that use of energy. Looked at in this light AGW is an anti-profligacy measure which goes hand in hand with the demands for a fitter, healthier populace. This makes sense because if the lights are going to go off we will need to be as fit as we can be to survive.
Ian Mott: NO
cohenite: YES
I just want a fucking big plasma TV, a Lamborghini Gallardo, and a bigger dick.
Abrakadabra!
big plasma TV, in your living room already
Lamborghini Gallardo, look in the carport
and a bigger dick, sorry we can only do miracles
Cohenite,
I don’t think consumerism is fun for everyone. Some people love shopping – but not me.
And there is no mention in the above post about forcing you not to go out and keep spending – but I do think it is worth reflecting every so often on what really makes you, as an individual, happy.
Many Australians go through life on a treadmill – working – buying- working to buy more – buy more – work more. And in the end they have so much stuff but are still mostly stressed, mostly cranky, and mostly ignorant of the world around them and what might make them and their family happy/happier.
Alcohol is an issue for many Australians, indeed a fair number depend on a few drinks every day and the initial dependence started perhaps because it provided some happines – or at least temporary stress release.
Amitai Etzioni separates out issues of consumerism from capitalism – many ‘Greens’ confuse the two. They reject consumerism and assume they need to thus also reject captialism. I, to some extent, reject consumerism, but I see that we should value capitalism.
“Some people love shopping – but not me.”
Jen, I thought my wife was the only girl with that philosophy. She even buys her clothes mail order! But that’s wonderful. Salvation IS possible.
Oh, I agree Jen; the point I was trying to make is that consumerism is expression of both individuality and conformity; it’s not perfect but this is the defining element of democratic capitalism; it’s imperfect but the best we’ve got; I think too often we assume people are un happy and need to be saved or otherwise vindicated by imposition of a higher ideal; this ‘motive’ along with unhealthy condescension is what I see in the critiques of consumerism by such people as Hamilton; people can be very ‘not unhappy’ in sloth and meaningless consumption; who has the right to lecture others on life-style? Which brings us to AGW; it is the ultimate excuse to lecture people on life-style because allegedly the life-style in question is destroying the planet; and no-one lost money or influence over people by making them feel guilty; just ask big Al.
On another tack may I congratulate you on your lack of interest in shopping; but shopping like consumerism can mean different things to different people; the Britney Spears bric a brac will be scorned by the discerning shopper of valuable antiques or trinkets which have some layer of meaning beyond what is attributed to Britney; but who is too say what will be valuable in 100 years? Luke, for example, who is well in touch with his feminine side, no doubt seeks the mind-numbing solace of transient pleasures to cool his ardour for and frustration with his failed idolatory of AGW; perhaps we can redirect his passion to Britney or maybe Brad and the other Jen and I can go back to my Phantom comic collection
What is described is human action.
All human action is based on a personally perceived sense of unease that is minimised, or removed, by a further action.
People buy things for specific purposes – but consumerism, obviously only possible when basic needs are satisfied, points to a different “uneasiness”.
The Indian philosopher Jiddu Krishnamurti suggested that consumerism might be described as the means by which the mind escapes from reality by distracting itself, much in the way that young people isolate themselves from reality by popping ear plugs attached to Ipods into their ears to escape physical reality.
Cohenite
” democratic capitalism”
Oxymoron – capitalism is individuals choosing; democratic capitalism is group sanctioned choosing, otherwise known as peer review.
I said “bigger” Coho
And we were philosophising at the collective the other day – having a drink out the back instead of the herbal tea muck – and my mate said that his good lady wife wanted to retire up to Maleny and have a charming rustic life style with chooks and geese. He said f the chooks and geese – all I want is a f’ing BIG plasma TV to watch sportz. And I mean really f’ing BIG. As big as Mott’s ego – that f’ing BIG ! So big that you can’t see the other side without turning your head 270 degrees.
Idolatry – nah I’m just an argumentative SOB. As well as being right. Face it Coho – you’d be lost without AGW-bashing – lobbying for GM products just doesn’t cut it – you were bored shitless with the law until this came along – but seriously when are you going to walk into Aspendale and call them out Coho.
You know – get out of all this secret society – special club stuff.
For luke; the ultimate consumer accessory for the capitalist who has everything;
http://www.thecircuitarchive.com/tca/archive/vids/DetachablePenis.php
Cohenite: “and no-one lost money or influence over people by making them feel guilty; just ask big Al.”
Ask the Catholic Church. “mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa”. Al is on the AGW kick because the best gig is already taken.
This consumerism really kicked off with the attempts of Johnson to use money creation to fund both the war in Vietnam and the “Great Society” welfare ponzi-scheme at the same time. And of course it continued with Nixon cutting the last link with gold. It was also enhanced by anti-competitive licensing of new media in the post-war West. It is not to be considered a feature of 100%-backed Commodity-money capitalism.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On another note I have a post to try and help people understand the importance of Jennifers outfit succeeding in its current project. Even the rumour of carbon taxes is ruination.
http://graemebird.wordpress.com/2009/06/04/a-lesson-in-the-theory-and-practical-reality-of-capital-markets-the-shadow-of-the-valley-of-the-threat-of-the-carbon-tax/
A Ferrari is better than a Lambo. The Ferrari has pedigree. Owned and raced by the same firm for 62 years. No one else comes close.
But as Ratty says, “if you’ve got a big dick, you don’t need a red Ferrari.” and probably the reverse is true too.
Some men have big dicks, some have red Ferraris. Some poor buggers have neither, but some lucky buggers have both!
The green/lefts linking of consumerism with capitalism betrays their ignorance of economics. Consumers are not capitalists. Consumption is the opposite of saving, saving equals investment and accumulated investment equals capital. See “The Millionaire Next Door” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Millionaire_Next_Door
“Most of the millionaire households that they profiled did not have the extravagant lifestyles that most people would assume. This finding is backed up by surveys indicating how little these millionaire households have spent on such things as cars, watches, suits, and other luxury products/services. Most importantly, the book gives a list of reasons for why these people managed to accumulate so much wealth (the top one being that “They live below their means”). The authors make a distinction between the ‘Balance Sheet Affluent’ (those with actual wealth, or high net-worth) and the ‘Income Affluent’ (those with a high income, but little actual wealth, or low net-worth).”
Call it the “protestant work ethic”, the “chinese/asian work ethic” or the “jewish work ethic”, these descriptors owe their credence to the relatively high proportion of these communities that regard work, thrift and prudent management of accumulated wealth as core virtues that are closely aligned with religious values. In buddhist/taoist/confucian cultures the display of wealth is an expression of pride and a provocation to fate and an invitation to downfall. And this mirrors the almost identical perspective of the lutheran/presbyterian/calvinist traditions. Both traditions are very wary of the illusory benefits of ill-gotten gains, the East with their karma and the west with their ultimate retribution.
Consumerism is the term now used to describe the set of behaviours that are outside those traditions. They have always been there but have fluctuated in prevalence with the phases of the economic cycle. And just as a fall in the stock market is described as a “correction” a decline in consumerism should also be regarded as a “correction”, a return to behaviours that reflect underlying values and economic reality.
Consumers are more motivated by symbolism. In the absence of accumulated surpluses they squander their short term surpluses on short lived symbols that need continuous renewal. And they reassure themselves with the belief that the rich have got that way through dishonest means.
So are you;
An “Under Accumulator of Wealth (UAW)”?
An “Average Accumulator of Wealth (AAW)”?
Or a “Prodigious Accumulator of Wealth (PAW)”?
Studies have disproved your “dicks” theory, Spangles. They have consistently shown that women married to high status males are quite willing to endure underperformance in bed while low status males are “cut no slack” if you’ll pardon the pun. The same goes for their tollerance of infidelity, or at least it did until the family law courts turned it all upside down.
The behaviour of the lady involved in the “Matthew John’s” debacle is a somewhat extreme example of the way male status can influence female behaviour.
And again, this clear evidence of greater status consciousness in females leaves one to wonder if consumerism might have a substantial “XX” chromosome element to it. Ann’s simplistic one word rejection of this thesis without explanation would tend to indicate that it might be rather close to the bone (sic).
Should we consume goods to live, or live to consume goods?
Flanagan,
Given that food is produced, etc, we therefore consume goods to live.
Food is a good, in the economic sense, something traded in a market.
That forces me to then think about the fact that most animals don’t participate in a market but feed off other animate forms of matter to live.
Quite an interesting question you have put here. 🙂
Our species is defined by religion and trade. The latter has allowed the development of civilisation, from the earliest trading in copper ore to the latest computer gizmo…and trade is nothing but shopping.
Shopping/Trading/going to the market is all about the satisfaction of human needs, whether I am a poverty ridden ascetic hippy who owns next to nothing but buys Hamilton’s book to give me an sactimonous inner sense of smug self-satisfaction, or a dizzy blond who just cannot wait to buy the next electronic toy to keep me entertained. I don’t think that being an XX or an XY has much to do with this. What you regard as an extravagent non-essential may be my “must have” that gives meaning to my life. Don’t judge me by your standards. If you want poverty and want to live like an Albian or Cuban and follow the Cuban/Albanian economic model, you are welcome to it.
This is why capitalism and the free market and free trade is the best system for meeting human needs, as it allows people to define their own needs through a market. The collective meeting of human needs just doesn’t appear to work very well in generating wealth and allowing humans to lead rich fulfilling lives. Yes, that’s right, consumer goods allows me to lead a rich fulfilling life, as this includes books and the internet and much else to allow me live a life undreamt of by my ancestors. It allows me to experience things, whether through watching my big screen TV, or actually travelling there.
The Stalinists who want to restrict consumer goods as frivolities miss a very important point.
Consumer goods sit atop a vast pyramid of production. They are the product of our technology and society. If we do not have the wealth to produce a wide range of consumer goods, we will not have the economic wealth or technical capacity to produce the more “essential” goods, like medical imaging and diagonostic equipment, nuclear power stations or many other high technology goods that contributes to our standard of living. All of these are driven by innovation and free markets. You can’t have one without the other.
As to some of the puerile comments above, as I said earlier, I don’t think it matters if you are an XX or an XY, we all have needs that we satisfy through trade. I go to work to trade my labour for money to buy things that meets my needs, including my need for status. The fact that an XX finds that status appealing is a whole different issue. As someone once said, the only thing women are interested in is the bulge where the wallet goes.
That last sentence should read “As someone more hard bitten and cynical than me once said…”
Oil Shrill, what proportion of women wear a five or even ten year old suit to work like many men do? Do you seriously believe that a new shade of lippy is an essential part of the development of medical imaging? Do you seriously believe that any injection of community values represents a threat to the operation of free markets?
Thrift is a value that has taken a back seat to consumer debt for a number of years and those who have ignored this value are now paying the price. No one is claiming that consumption must be eliminated. But when it becomes excessive then the market has a way of reigning it back in, it is called a recession. Consumer restraint has always been the first step to the formation of capital and recessions remind us all that it can also be the key to hanging on to whatever capital one already has.
Similarly, I have not, as you appear to believe, been suggesting that consumerism is entirely of “XX” chromosome origin. I have merely pointed out some obvious differences in purchasing patterns between males and females and have suggested that the proportions may not be evenly weighted and are in need of further study. It is also obvious that the propensity to consume varies with age and circumstance for both genders.
Why so defensive?
Ian. Whilst you may wear a 10 year old suit to work (and I really don’t need the mental image) most others keep some semblance of fashion. You are using the words “community values”, which sounds awfully autocratic, as does the judgement on “excessive consumption”. Your “excessive” consumption is someone elses’ lifestyle. Is your socialist state going to make people wear Mao jackets?
I like my consumerism, just like I love my CO2. I love living in a society that has free markets and private property rights and, because of this over many generations, I now have a wide range of consumer goods to choose. In fact, my choice is bewildering. But it is only by living in a society of plenty that I can enjoy a healthy fulfilling and long life as there are sufficient resources to fund medical research, environmental protection, development of new technologies, broadband and other infrastructure and various public goods, as well as many of the things I enjoy. You may not like what other people do with their money, but it is theirs to “waste”. Only your waste is their fulfillment. I have “wasted” much money on buying a telescope. Few others would. But I enjoy staring into space and I am thankful that I live on a free market economy that enables me to purchase something that even the super wealthy could not afford even 20 years ago.
And as far as capital formation goes, this is driven by markets, as is technical innovation. It is not driven by “values” or “thrift”. If there is a market demand then someone will invest in capital to meet consumer needs, someone will innovate, and we all benefit.
Finally, I am not defensive. There may well be differences in purchasing (shopping) patterns between males and females and age. There is a whole profession devoted to studying this. It’s called Marketing, and you rarely are told the results as they are proprietary. I have this belief that we all share the same emotional template and that we are all consumers, and all practice consumerism. We all want possessions beyond our ‘basic’ needs, and status. Even Clive Hamilton.
Do you seriously believe that a new shade of lippy is an essential part of the development of medical imaging?
Yes I do. There are no silos. There are no barriers. Innovation in one field can spill over to another.The expansion of markets generates wealth, that generates more investment and consumption, including medical research, including increasing taxation to pay for public health facilities. We are all interrelated, and we have a society that encourages innovation (via private property rights) and wealth creating through market trading. Free market trading (consumerism) creates resources. More lippy = more of everything else.
he socialist fallacy is that the stock of wealth is fixed and needs to be re-distributed. That suppressing one product (ie lippy) will mean other, more “worthy” goods are produced. The last 40 years has shown this to be nonsense.
Do you seriously believe that any injection of community values represents a threat to the operation of free markets?
Yes. Markets must be free. Intervention creates distortions and unintended consequences. Witness the Rudd governments hamfisted guarantee of bank deposits, which has destroyed confidence in many other investments.
In any case, how do you formulate “community values”? How do you implement them? That public policy formation and implementation should be so easy and the world so simple. No so.
Oil shill, the people who know me well would be tickled pink at the news that someone has accused me of socialism. So why don’t you go and have a good bowel movement and then come back and read what I have actually said. Where, in anything that I have said, could you get the impression that I was promoting market intervention?
You seem to have some incredible delusion that expressing an opinion on a humble blog is tantamount to marketplace coercion. I am merely exercising my right as a citizen to use my opinions to influence market behaviour. Just as you are. I have pointed out that those who consume more than they produce very rarely accumulate capital.
And if you had bothered to read into the maths behind the categories mentioned in “The Millionaire Next Door” you would understand that all it takes to become an Average Accumulator of Wealth is to save 10% of what you earn each year and consume the remaining 90%. That is, a person 50 years old, on an income of $50,000 a year who has a net worth of $250,000 is an average accumulator.
Those who save less than this, who consume more, are Under Accumulators of Wealth. They do not build capital because their consumption levels are in excess of the average. And these are not my figures, they are fairly consistent over a number of economies.
And when we talk about “consumerism” we are clearly talking about the behaviour of people who, regardless of what their actual income may be, consume more than the average 90% of income. And when I state my opinion, that people who’s consumerism is so unrestrained that they borrow money so they can consume more than they earn are stupid, it is from the perspective of someone who is likely to be asked to help fund the moron’s old age.
My/our household savings rate is double that of a Prodigious Accumulator of Wealth and 4 times the average. We consume only 60% of what we earn and we are “capitalists” because we possess capital. We do not need to spend money we don’t have, to impress people we neither know or like.
My expression of opinion is the same as an advertisers right to appeal to customers. We both operate in the market place for ideas. An advertiser is quite free to claim that his product will make people cool, beautiful and even intelligent. But I am also free to suggest that people who by such products are sad, poor and stupid.
And the fact that you have chosen to interpret my statements about excessive consumption, ie. consumerism, as an attack on all consumption, would tend to indicate that you only know one form of consumption, the excessive, illdisciplined and self destructive form.
Oil shrill capitalism isn’t about consumerism. Thats interventionism in the era of inflation. Capitalism rather goes in for throwing ones resources into the future. Thats the problem Keynes had with it.
You’re most welcome, Louis, and I agree with you.