The Modern Consumer:
Overtaxed, Overwhelmed, and Overdrawn
By: Keith Brooks
April 27, 2007
Keith Brooks is pursuing his Masters of Environmental Studies (MES) through York University’s Faculty
of Environmental Studies. His research interests include consumer culture, activism, and social change.
Please send any comments to [email protected]
1
Our Consumer Society
It has been argued that consumerism, rather than democracy or capitalism won the
ideological battle of the 20th century (see Flavin, 2003) and is the defining characteristic
of modern developed nations. The consumerist zeal is palpable in the U.S. where
consumerism enjoys near hegemonic status, tied to notions of freedom, choice and
economic prosperity. Consumerism is valourized to such a degree that George Bush Sr.
declared a National Consumers Week in 1989 (American Presidency Project) essentially
stating that consumerism is both a right and a virtue. After the terrorist attacks of 9/11
George W. Bush Jr. asked Americans to go shopping, claiming that if Americans didn’t
feel free to shop, the terrorists had already won (Barber, 2007). Consumerism is so
central to the American psyche that people who willingly curbed their consumption have
been accused of being “un-American” (Caldwell, 2007). While consumerism may not be
as central to Canadian identity as it is to the American, the situation in Canada and other
developed countries is not much different. Our malls are just as busy, our public spaces
as full of advertisements and shopping is a national pastime.
The word consumerism first emerged to describe the movement to protect the
rights of consumers, but recent critiques of consumerism focus more on the economic
rationale that supports mass consumption and the incredible importance our society
attaches to material possessions. Early capitalism focused on the production side of the
economy, but now the focus is on the consumption side. The protestant work ethic that
Weber argued allowed capitalism to thrive has now been replaced by a hedonistic
consumer ethic that demands we consume and equates private greed with public good
(Barber, 2007). Consumerism is understood to be good for the country and good for the
2
individual; it keeps the economy growing and allows individuals to pursue the happiness
that is believed to lie at the end of a successful shopping spree or bargain hunt.
The roots of consumerism can be traced to many different places. Some attribute
Adam Smith with birthing the consumer ethic when he said “consumption is the sole end
and purpose of all production” (from the Wealth of Nations, quoted in Daunton and
Hilton, 2001; p. 9). Some trace consumerism to the development of post WWII suburbia,
which Lizabeth Cohen refers to as “the landscape of mass consumption” (2003, p.6).
Others posit that consumerism took hold in United States in 1960, with the introduction
of the Consumer Bill of Rights by John F. Kennedy. Whatever its roots, consumerism is
embraced by nations and individuals alike and the consumer utopia, the new American
Dream, has now become the dream of many developing nations.
Consumerism has always had critics, but in the last decade there has been a
renewed interest in and disdain for consumer culture. Consumerism’s benevolence has
recently been questioned due to five factors: the continued degradation of the natural
environment, the huge and ever-widening income gap, the “relentless commodification of
all areas of social life” (Holt and Schor, 2000; pp. vii-ix), the rapid globalization of the
world economy, and the release of many studies proving that excessive consumption has
not made people any happier. These will be discussed in greater detail below.
Across Toronto, as in most cities in North America, factories where consumer
goods were once produced are converted into loft spaces to house consumers (Klein,
2000). Consumer culture covers virtually every available space and has crept in to every
facet of modern life. It’s been pointed out that even rebellion has been commercialized
and “individuality has become the new conformity” (Niedzviecki, 2006). Naomi Klein
3
thought she was documenting the beginning of an anti-corporate, anti-consumerist mass
movement in 2000, and while some successful campaigns have improved the practices of
the some of more obviously unscrupulous corporations, a mass anti-consumerist
movement is not in evidence. Instead, aggregate and per-capita consumer spending is
greater now than ever before (Assadourian et al., 2004). It seems that nothing is sacred or
beyond the reach of the consumer culture. Whether consumption is used to help us fit in,
or whether it is used to help us stand out, our identity is structured around our
consumption. We are what we buy. We are addicted to consumerism and while its
economic benefits are clear, it has devastating effects on society.
Consuming the Natural Environment
The environment is a hot topic right now. Articles concerning the environment
regularly fill the front pages of newspapers, new websites geared at environmental
protection are launched every day, and a power-point presentation on climate change
even won an Oscar 1 . Even right-wing pundit Thomas Freidman is urging the U.S. to go
green (Freidman, 2007). Currently, the focus is on global warming, carbon dioxide and
the use of fossil fuels. The story we hear is mostly about buying more energy efficient
light bulbs or hybrid vehicles and transitioning to green energy. Admittedly, reducing the
amount of carbon dioxide emitted into the earth’s atmosphere is important, but carbon
dioxide is only one of the many pollutants produced by our society and climate change is
only one of the many environmental issues we’re faced with. In addition, we cannot
simply buy our way towards an environmentally sustainable future, no matter how many
light bulbs we purchase.
1
Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth won the Oscar for Best Documentary
4
The true consequences of consumption are hard to see, but what we choose to
consume and how much we consume influences the degree to which we impact the
natural environment. Humans’ environmental impacts are a function of both resource
consumption and waste production (Diamond, 2005; p. 351), both of which are
exacerbated by consumerism. Unfortunately, there has never “been any attempt
systematically to create a situation where all costs and benefits are allowed for in
deciding whether or not to consume” (Carr-Hill and Lintott, 2002: p. 15) and the impacts
are largely hidden. Consumer culture impacts the environment to such a degree that the
Worldwatch Institute dedicated the 2004 issue of their annual State of the World report to
the consumer society.
One of the best ways to understand environmental sustainability is in terms of
“natural capital” (Steffen, 2006). This analogy equates the earth’s resources with capital,
which if managed properly yields interest. In order to be living sustainably, we should be
living off the interest (and if we were more thoughtful and purposeful about our resource
use we could live quite well off the interest). But right now we’re spending the interest
and taking a big bite out of the capital. North America and Europe run ecological deficits
(Barber, 2007). Globally, we’re in what ecologists refer to as “overshoot”, meaning that
we are degrading the earth’s ecosystems faster than they can be renewed (Steffen, 2006).
Just like a bank account, less capital yields less interest. Everyday that we use more of the
capital, the earth’s ability to support life is further diminished.
Humans also affect their environment through the production of waste. Often
people equate waste with litter and point the finger at styrofoam cups and excessive
packaging. Municipalities develop waste management strategies to divert household
5
waste from landfills via recycling and composting and contemplate proposals to ban
plastic bags. While these initiatives are commendable, they fail to address the issue that
waste is generated throughout every product’s entire lifetime. It has been said that as little
as 2% of the waste generated by human activity actually passes through our doors. In
order for a consumer product to be available for purchase, raw resources are mined or
otherwise procured, refined, and turned into a finished product, which is then packaged
and shipped, often from long distances. By the time a product reaches the store shelf it
has left behind it a legacy of waste. To make matters worse, many products are not built
to last. The disposable nature of consumer goods is partially understandable since styles
come and go, new gadgets constantly present themselves, waves of “creative destruction”
continue to break, but our disposable world chews through massive amounts of resources
and generates mountains of waste. Consumer electronics are often rendered obsolete
within a couple years of purchase. “Consumer Reports says Americans threw away about
3 million tons of electronics in 2003. Some 700 million cell phones have already been
thrown away worldwide, with 130 million disposed of in 2005 alone” (Elgin, 2007).
Waste from home electronics, called e-waste, is so abundant that in 2007 there were
numerous Earth Day campaigns specifically targeting it 2 . Most of our waste reductions
strategies are geared towards dealing with waste as it leaves people’s homes but little
attention is paid to the amount of waste generated in getting products to people’s homes.
In order make a substantial reduction on the amount of waste generated, there will have
to be a corresponding reduction in the amount of goods produced because waste isn’t just
what you throw in the trash can.
2
The Bay Area of San Francisco is just one.
6
Environmental issues are related to consumption. Over-population is often
fingered as the cause of environmental degradation but the stress humans place on their
environment is not simply a matter of how many of us there are. It is also a matter of how
much stuff we use, and how much waste we produce. In response to climate change we
are presented with a whole range of “green” products geared towards helping us shrink
our “ecological footprints.” But we cannot simply consume our way to environmental
sustainability. Certainly we must consume more intelligently and intentionally, but we
must also consume less.
Consumerism and Economic Inequality
During the 1950s, advocates of consumerism in the U.S. claimed that greater
consumption was the way to promote a more egalitarian distribution of wealth without
requiring stringent political intervention (Cohen, 2003; p. 127). Fifty years of history
have proven this thesis wrong. The economic and social disparity between individuals
both within and among countries is greater than ever before and the situation continues to
worsen. In the U.S., one percent of the population controls 40% of the household wealth
and the wealthiest twenty percent of the population is responsible for over half the
country’s consumer spending (Holt and Schor, 2000; p vii). The Canadian Centre for
Policy Alternatives reports that “the after-tax income gap has never been this high in at
least 30 years, and it has been growing faster than ever since the late 1990s” (Yalnizyan,
2007; p. 3). In a global sense, while only 5% of the global population reside in Canada
and the U.S, these two countries are responsible for 31% of consumer spending
(Anderson, 2007). In 2006 the per capita GDP of the U.S. was over forty times greater
7
than that of the twenty poorest countries. (www.cia.gov). 3 Benjamin Barber (2007) points
out that the unfortunate reality is that it’s not profitable to produce goods for the needy
because they have limited purchasing power. As Barber says, we’re in a period where the
haves have no needs, but the needy have no means. In the interests of profit, instead of
servicing the needs of the needy, advertisers manufacture needs for the haves. This
situation can be evidenced by the incredible sums of money spent on advertising 4 . While
the amount of money required to eradicate poverty by 2015 as set out in the UN
Millennium Development Goals has still not been made available, spending on
advertising is greater than ever. In 2005 the amount of money spent on advertising was
approximately seven times the amount spent on aid. 5
Globalization is only exacerbating economic inequality. Now that companies are
free to set up shop wherever they please, (which will be discussed in more detail below)
it is in their best economic interest to do so in a country with low wages, thus pitting
counties against each, under-cutting each other in a ruthless race to the bottom. The result
is an income gap that takes on epic proportions where the richest make millions while
their labourers in the third world, some of whom toil in excess of eighteen hour days,
don’t have access to clean drinking water and struggle to feed their families. In 1997 the
workers in a garment factory in Jakarta were paid the equivalent of US$2 per day to make
a product they couldn’t even properly name, because it is completely inappropriate for
3
The CIA world fact book reports that the per capita GDP for the U.S. was estimated to be around $43,500
and Canada’s was estimated to be $35,200, while the 20 poorest countries report per capita GDPs of $1000
or less.
4
The Worldwatch institute reports that global spending on advertising was $570 billion dollars in 2005,
and nearly half that was spent in the U.S. source http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4263, retrieved April 20,
2007.
5
The World Bank reported that global spending on aid was $86 billion in 2004
8
their climate (Klein, 2000: p. xvii). Consumerism is not closing the income gap; it’s
prying it open and jamming it with toys made in Taiwan and t-shits from India.
Consumerism and the Commodification of Social Life
In her influential book No Logo (2000), Naomi Klein documents the advance of
advertising and the “brand bullies” into every aspect of North American culture. Our
televisions have been inundated with ads for some time, but now virtually every facet of
our social lives serves as yet another venue for marketers to catch our attention. Our
streets are covered in billboards, subway stations and busses plastered with
advertisements, even our garbage cans are selling something. Sports stadiums that used to
be named for historical figures are now sponsored by corporations, Canada’s most
prominent literary award is sponsored by a bank 6 , and virtually all arts production relies
on corporate sponsors. Many of us even cover ourselves in advertisements, proudly
displaying our brand savvy. Increasingly public schools, libraries and parks are being
commercialized. The withdrawal or reduction of public funding from these institutions
leaves them little option but to seek corporate sponsors. In many public schools in the
U.S., privately owned Channel One is permitted to air commercials during classes in
exchange for providing schools with audio-visual equipment (Barber, 2007).
In Klein’s book we hear the reason for the relentless encroachment of marketing
into our daily lives when a marketing executive tells her “Consumers…are like roaches –
you spray them and spray them and they get immune after a while” (2000, p. 9). I follow
Klein when she says “That we live in a sponsored life is now a truism and it’s a pretty
safe bet that as spending on advertising continues to rise we roaches will be treated to
6
I’m referring to the ScotiaBank Giller Prize.
9
even more of these ingenious gimmicks, making it ever more difficult and more
seemingly pointless to muster even an ounce of outrage” (2000; p. 12).
Whether you blame marketers for advertising to us at every available opportunity,
governments for cutting funding and forcing public institutions to ask for corporate handouts, or individuals for not fighting back, the end result is that everywhere we turn we are
bombarded by messages encouraging us to buy something. Brands have become “cultural
accessories and lifestyle philosophers” (Klein, 2000: p. 16). The landscape is obscured by
the brandscape. Not everyone is bothered by the abundance of logos covering every
available nook and cranny, but to many it is a sign that we’ve gone too far. It drives home
the point that we live in branded world where it seems that everything we do is just
another opportunity for someone to try and sell us something.
Consumerism and Globalization
Economic globalization has intensified consumerism. As a result of free trade
agreements most consumer goods are produced in developing countries where there is an
abundance of cheap labour and access to resources, but consumed in countries were
people have large disposable incomes. While the United States and Canada have become
nations of consumers, countries like China, Indonesia, and South Korea have become
nations of producers. This split has resulted in reduced prices for consumer goods, which
has correspondingly led to increases in consumption. It has also led to a situation where
consumers don’t see how much waste is generated in the production of goods, because
they are removed from the process of production by thousands of kilometres. It is well
known that China is expected to become the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases
10
and most analysts suggest that there is little we can do, but what they fail to mention is
that many of these Chinese factories responsible for emitting pollutants into the
atmosphere are making products which are destined for North American markets. It
makes logical sense that a nation of producers correspondingly pollutes more, however it
is less obvious to make that connection between our consumption and the production of
waste when the evidence is thousands of kilometres away.
The search for the cheap labour and natural resources needed to supply developed
nations with inexpensive consumer goods has led to the “proletarianization” of millions
of people, privatizing common lands, turning people into landless labourers in a process
Marx termed primitive accumulation (McNally, 2002; p. 77). Juliet Schor and Douglas
Holt argue that the Battle of Seattle was in opposition to the global spread of
consumerism. “Protesters in Seattle attacked not only, or even mainly, the export of
American jobs, but rather the corporate vision of global consumerism. They questioned
the very desirability of the WTO’s stated purpose of increasing incomes through global
trade. Rejecting the current system of cheap commodities based on exploiting labour and
natural resources, they offered alternative visions of local economies built on sustainable
agriculture, locally controlled manufacturing and retailing, and limited material desires”
(2000; p. ix).
Consumerism and Happiness
The benevolent nature of consumerism is being increasingly questioned in
wealthier countries in the wake of the publication of a number of studies showing that
greater material wealth doesn’t equate with greater happiness. We often associate notions
11
of happiness with an abundance of consumer goods and are led to believe that larger
salaries and greater consumption will make us happier. When we’re feeling depressed,
many of us head to the malls hoping to buoy our spirits. But studies have shown lasting
happiness cannot be found through consumption. Sure, initially we might feel elated from
purchasing something we’ve always wanted, or the newest coolest thing, but the feeling
is often fleeting. In fact, we often end up feeling worse as a result of our consumption.
There’s even a commonly used turn of phrase, buyers remorse, to express the
unhappiness that ultimately lies at the end of many purchases.
The number of people reporting they are “very happy” plateaued fifty years ago,
while income and commensurate consumption levels have increased steadily (see
Assadourian and Gardner, 2004; p. 164). The notion that you can’t buy happiness is even
gracing the front pages of newspapers (Herst, 2007). Studies are showing that happiness
can be found rather simply, and without spending a nickel. Happiness results from two
things: meeting one’s expectations, and feeling that one is faring well relative to others.
Unfortunately, our expectations are constantly raised. In our modern consumerist society,
we’re constantly keeping up with the Jones’, caught up in what philosopher Mark
Kingwell termed a “consumerist arms race” (2000, p. 215). When comparing ourselves to
others, most of us feel that we deserve at least as big a piece of the pie as anyone else, if
not an even greater slice. “Most people… would prefer [to make] $50,000 while others
made $25,000 to earning $100,000 while others made $250,000” (Kingwell, 2000; p.
214). The point here is that it isn’t important how much money we make; it’s important
mow much we make relative to others. These two trends, continually rising expectations
12
and the relative nature of wealth, would seem to suggest that there is no logical point at
which we fill find satisfaction through consumption. The bar continues to be raised.
Canadians and Americans have greater levels of work related stress, seek out
more therapy, use more medications to cope with the demanding lifestyles we’ve adopted
in order to consume more things we don’t need. Consumerism isn’t making us happier;
it’s making us busier.
Consumerism and Citizens
In order to confront the issues discussed above, a number of calls for a more
engaged citizenry have been ushered. Unfortunately, consumerism doesn’t only lead to
increased environmental degradation and economic inequality; it also keeps people from
acting to remedy these situations. It undermines the ability of citizens to come together
and act in the face of social and environmental issues. There has been a great deal of
scholarship regarding the need for stronger democracy and deeper definitions of
citizenship to face issues of environmental sustainability and social justice, but in wealthy
western nations citizenship appears to be in retreat instead of revival. Two of the last
three Canadian elections saw just over sixty percent of registered voters cast a ballot,
with just a slight improvement in 2006 to 64% turnout (www.elections.ca) 7 . In the U.S.
the situation is even worse where between 50 and 55 percent of the registered voters can
be expected to come out for the presidential elections, but less than 40 percent for the
mid-term elections (www.infoplease.com) 8 . To create “the world we want” (Kingwell,
7
http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=pas&document=turnout&lang=e&textonly=false, retrieved
April 19, 2007.
8
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html, retrieved April 19, 2007
13
2000) citizens need to direct society. Unfortunately, many of them are too busy working
and shopping.
One way consumerism affects citizenship is by fostering individualism over
community. As mentioned above, consumerism equates private greed with public good
(Barber, 2007). A citizen can be seen to be doing their part by pursuing personal wealth
and happiness through exercising consumer choice. The greedier one is, the more money
they can spend on consumer goods, and the more they stimulate the economy. Of course,
every country needs a strong economy and people should be free to pursue happiness, but
the idea that happiness is found in material wealth has been shown to be false. “We are
not happier with more stuff but with more meaning” (Kingwell, 2000; p. 218). But
instead of pursuing meaning through nurturing community, cooperating with our
neighbours and engaging with other state and non-state actors in an effort to provision for
public goods and shape society in a manner that makes it more just, more interesting, and
more beautiful, we’re relentlessly pursuing consumer products while consoling our
conscience with the belief that were acting in the public’s best interest.
Benjamin Barber holds that this individualism is a sign of immaturity. Children
naturally think of themselves as the centre of the universe, but as they become adults they
recognize that they have responsibilities to others and that their private actions have
public consequences. Barber contends that consumer capitalism is successful at
propagating individualism because it infantilizes adults. Consumer culture requires that
adults remain immature, forever in need of the next cool thing and searching for identity
and meaning through consumer products. Marketing strategies targeted to young
professionals make tell them that you can still be cool well into your thirties, thus keeping
14
the “cool hunt” going. The infantilization of adults keeps them focused on their
individual desires, distracted from and disinterested in public affairs.
The interests of consumers and citizens are often at odds with each other. As a
consumer, I want cheap goods from Wal-Mart, but as a citizen I want there to be high
paying jobs. As a consumer I might I want a big gas-guzzling SUV, but as a citizen I
want clean air and energy independence (Barber, 2007). According to Barber, our
individualistic desires are called “first-order desires” and our larger, more civically
minded desires are “second-order desires.” Our consumer culture privileges our firstorder desires over second-order desires. But while indulging our first-order desires “there
is the quiet knowledge that what’s bad for us in common is good for the bottom line and
just fine for me, for my bottom line, for my stock portfolio, and for the long-term value of
my property” (Barber, 2007; p 135).
As mentioned above, there is no logical end point to acquisition. The consequence
of this insatiable desire for goods is that in order to afford them, we now work harder
than ever. “Those of us in the most prosperous parts of the world now work longer hours,
commute farther and sleep less – all in the service of the good life” (Kingwell, 2000: p.
217-18). The end result is that even though the wealthiest of us have no real needs, we
continue to feel like our needs are never met, no matter how much time we devote to
them. Our wants are so grand that we must constantly pursue them and have limited time
available to attend to civic duties.
In North America people happily fill their weekends with trips to Costco and Ikea
but have trouble making in out to the ballot box once every few years. In the act of
consuming, the citizen herself is consumed (Barber, 2007).
15
Globalization, Citizenship and the Nation-state
It so happens that as the calls for a more engaged citizenry are sounded, the
traditional sites of citizenship are under attack. “Modern citizenship itself was born of the
nation-state in which certain rights and obligations were allocated to individuals under its
authority (Isin and Turner, 2002; p. 2). But, the nation’s primacy as the sole site of
citizenship does not hold anymore, for as David Held asks, “What kind of control can
citizens of a single nation-state have over international actors, multinational corporations,
and over international organizations such as the World Bank?”(1998: p. 12). In addition
to the foundations of citizenship being eroded due to loss in state authority (Falk, 2000),
an increasing number of claims are made to identities not situated in national contexts,
and not represented by the state (Sassen, 2002). In the words of James Bohman, “the
position of the nation state in the global order has become more complex: it is now too
small for global economic problems and too large to assure cultural identity” (1998; p.
203)
There can be little disagreement with the notion that nations are part of, and
largely subservient to, the global economy. Thomas Freidman explains economic
globalization in his 1999 book, The Lexus and the Olive Tree. “The driving idea behind
globalization is free-market capitalism - the more you let market forces rule and the more
you open your economy to free trade and competition, the more efficient and flourishing
your economy will be. Globalization means the spread of free-market capitalism to
virtually every country around the world. Globalization also has its own set of economic
rules – rules that revolve around opening, deregulating and privatizing your economy”
(1999, p. 8). The promise of prosperity, coupled to some more strong-arm tactics of
16
international lending organizations such as the IMF, has led to the deregulation,
privatization and freer trade of goods and services between nations. Some economies of
developing countries have been bolstered by economic globalization, but in the process
they have been forced to cede a great deal of economic authority to three different types
of global economic actors: international organizations such as the World Bank,
transnational corporations, and international investors.
Counties wishing to be members of large trading bodies such as the WTO are
subject to a number of rules governing trade. Among other things, these rules prohibit
countries from subsidizing their own industries and stopping foreign goods from reaching
their markets. The result is that well capitalized corporations can undercut local
industries, forcing them out of business when they are unable to compete. Globalization
has allowed transnational corporations (TNCs) to grow into virtual global monopolies,
some of which have larger budgets than entire countries. “According to a December 2000
report by the Institute of Policy Studies, fifty-one of the one hundred largest economies in
the world are corporations, and only forty-nine [are] nation states” (McNally, 2002: p.
35). These multinational corporations are free to move as they like, subverting the rule of
any nation, and are thus being courted by all of them given that TNCs bring a great deal
of wealth and employment to a country they decide to operate in.
The authority of nation-states is further undermined by the vast amounts of wealth
controlled by a group of individuals Freidman calls the “electronic herd”. He describes
them as “often anonymous stock, bond, currency and multinational investors” (1999,
p.94). The herd roams freely around the earth, grazing on a nation’s human and natural
resources, looking for the best return on their investment. Once the herd is in, a nation is
17
beholden to them. For if the economic situation ceases to be favourable to the herd, a
nation’s entire economy can be devastated when the herd moves on, as was the case in
Argentina in 2001.
As mentioned above, in addition to the nation-state becoming too small to manage
economic issues, it is now too large to allow for the multiplicity of cultural, religious and
civilizational identities that are making claims to rights and recognition (Falk, 2000). The
shift can be seen to stem from three developments: the loss of authority over economic
matters as detailed above, a backlash against the universalizing forces of economic
globalization, and the global cultural flows that followed economic globalization.
To many, globalization was at first understood as a homogenizing force, “pressing
nations together by communications, information, entertainment, and commerce,” uniting
the planet into one “McWorld” (Barber, 1995; p 4). Naturally, there has been substantial
resistance to this attempt to remake the world in the image of global capital. Barber refers
to this backlash as “retribalization…A threatened balkanization of nation-states in which
culture is pitted against culture, people against people, tribe against tribe, a Jihad in the
name of a hundred narrowly conceived faiths against every kind of interdependence”
(Barber, 1995; p. 4). This thesis is similar to the one put forth in Samuel Huntington’s
The Clash of Civilizations, in which he posits that identities are now civilizational as
opposed to national in nature. An all-out war between civilizations has not broken out,
but racial and religious tensions are flaring up across the world as numerous groups no
longer align themselves with nations and fear their cultures are in jeopardy of being
subsumed by McWorld. If print capitalism and language barriers gave rise to national
18
identities (Anderson, 1991), globalization is giving rise to a myriad of diasporic, hybrid
identities that are not situated in national contexts.
James Rossenau observes that authority has been relocated and “this relocation
has thus evolved in two directions, “upward” toward transnational organizations and
“downward” toward subnational groups, with the result that national governments are
decreasingly competent to address and resolve major issues confronting their societies”
(1992; p. 256). But it would be incorrect to say that nations are of no consequence any
more. As Janet Conway says, “The national state as guarantor of citizenship rights has
clearly not been abandoned, but it has been decentered as the uniquely privileged terrain
of citizenship politics” (2004; p. 373). A new site for global citizenship must be found.
Currently, “the basic problem is that there is no provision at the global level for
elementary social justice, the provision of social goods globally and other non-income
objectives.” (Drache, 2001; p. 3) We are left without citizens and without an arena in
which citizenship can operate.
Enter the Citizen-Consumer
In response to calls for renewed civic engagement and the need for some form of
global citizenship, some theorists have offered that the transnational citizen is already in
existence and active in the form of the “citizen-consumer.” They argue that consumerism
is not at fault for declining civic engagement. On the contrary, they hold that consumers
vote with their dollars every day and thus have greater opportunity to affect changes and
express their preferences. Margaret Scammell argues that “Citizenship is not dead, or
dying, but found in new places, in life-politics…and in consumption” (2000; p. 351). She
19
says that we now live in the “age of the citizen-consumer” and “as consumers…we, at
least in the developed North, have more power than ever” (2000; p. 351).
In her book, A Consumer’s Republic (2003), Lisabeth Cohen traces the
development of the “consumer citizen” in the U.S. which she argues first arose during the
Great Depression of the 1930s. Consumerism then played a pivotal role during WWII,
but really came to be a defining characteristic of America after the war, when factories
that had produced war-related goods were reconverted back to producing consumer
goods. Cohen follows the citizen consumer through three waves of consumer activism
noting that consumption has played an important role in the shaping of modern-day
America and continues to be a site of political activism.
In recent years, there has been a great deal of literature regarding the politicization
of consumption. Recent notions of the consumer-citizen, whose actions are sometimes
referred to as political consumerism (Micheletti, 2003, Bennet, forthcoming, and others),
is centered around the idea that consumers can exert pressure on a company perceived to
have socially or environmentally damaging practices. The internet has empowered
consumers, enabling them to access and disseminate information quickly and to large
numbers of concerned people (See Bennett, Klein, 2000, and others). Perhaps the most
famous example of political consumerism is the anti-Nike campaign. In response to a
Nike website promotion allowing visitors to create customized shoes, a customer asked to
have the word “sweatshop” written on his pair of sneakers. This began a series of emails
back and forth between a representative of Nike and the customer. The emails were
quickly distributed over the internet and eventually made their way to the mass media and
succeeded in publicly shaming Nike. Similar campaigns have encouraged other
20
companies to improve conditions or increase the wages paid to workers in their factories.
Political consumerism has also helped spawn new ethical businesses such as L.A. based
American Apparel which proudly promotes its sweatshop free practices.
Political consumerism isn’t limited to the garment industry either. Organic foods
have increased in popularity to such an extent that major retailers such as Loblaws and
Wal-Mart now stock organic foods on their shelves. Wal-Mart and Home-Depot have
both recently declared that they will begin to stock and label environmentally friendly
products because consumers have articulated a demand for them. Companies including
The Body Shop, Wholefoods, and Ben and Jerry’s have arisen as a result of political
consumerism and a growing number of consumers who wish to spend their money more
ethically. In response to Naomi Klein, Scammel holds that “consumer activism is a
response to the “corporate hijacking of political power” and to the “brands’ looting of
public and mental space.”” (2000; p. 354). Micelle Michelletti argues that “political
consumerism thus renews political community through new ideas, actions, arenas,
methods and new groups of participants…[and] gives people a way to practice virtuous
civic activity in their every-day lives” (2003; p. 36).
The Citizen-Consumer Assessed
As discussed above, seemingly private acts of consumption have public
consequences. In light of this recognition, the politicization of consumption is a welcome
development, but calls for more engaged citizens should not be silenced by the
appearance of the citizen-consumer. The citizen-consumer is a very exclusive form of
21
citizenship, with a narrow focus and a limited ability to affect change. Some of its
shortcomings will be discussed briefly below.
The internet is the preferred medium of the consumer-citizen (Klein 2000,
Bennett, forthcoming). The internet serves to inform people and connect them to the
networks necessary to engage in meaningful consumer activism. One must know why
they should do something, what choices are available to them, and believe that there is a
critical mass of individuals that are willing to act in concert, such that when they do raise
their voices they will be heard. The vast majority of people involved in political
consumerism are people with access to the internet. The growth in the number of internet
users is staggering but the digital divide is still in place, leaving the most marginalized
voices effectively silenced. In 2004 there was 8 times the user penetration rate for the
internet in the developed world that in the developing world. In 2004, less than 3 out of
every 100 Africans use the Internet, compared with an average of 1 out of every 2
inhabitants of the G8 countries (www.itu.int) 9 . Internet-enabled political consumerism
does not allow everyone to voice their concerns and leaves those that are the most
marginalized without representation.
The consumer-citizen is understood to vote with their dollars, purchasing products
from companies they believe are good corporate citizens. An obvious issue with this
system is that people with greater wealth have more votes. As mentioned above, the
income gap is greater than ever before and growing faster than ever. Since forty percent
of the wealth in the U.S. is controlled by one percent of the population and the wealthiest
twenty percent are responsible for half the consumer spending, the outcomes of voting
9
From the World Summit on the Information Society Webpage
http://www.itu.int/wsis/tunis/newsroom/stats/, retrieved April 24, 2007
22
with dollars are skewed in favour of the wealthy. Furthermore, if the consumer citizen is
understood to vote with their dollars, then deciding to consume less is akin to not voting
or voter apathy. How is a vote in favour of buying less counted? Lastly, not everyone has
the freedom to choose. Many people simply cannot afford to choose between organic
food and conventional food, or to pay a premium for sweatshop-free clothes. The calls for
inclusive forms of citizenship that give a voice to marginalized groups cannot be
answered by the citizen-consumer model. In fact, the citizen consumer model further
marginalizes those already on the margin.
Political consumerism is capable of encouraging companies to introduce green
product lines or voluntarily label GMOs, but it can only do so much. No matter how
much the attitudes of a publicly held company may change, or how much they might
decide that environmental sustainability is one of their values, they must do whatever is
most profitable because they are ultimately responsible to their shareholders. So-called
green products may be manufactured, but as long as there is a market for environmentally
unfriendly products they will also be produced, unless there is legislation that prohibits it.
We end up in a tragedy of the commons type situation where one might say “No one else
is paying a premium to protect the environment or encourage social justice. Why should
I?”
As was mentioned above, economic globalization has allowed three types of
economic actors to rise above the control of governments: transnational corporations,
international organizations, and international investors. Political consumerism can only
exert pressure on the TNCs. Buying organic foods or fair-trade coffee does little to affect
the actions of the WTO or hedge fund managers. In order to provision for environmental
23
sustainability and social justice there needs to be some greater form of governance to
restrict, or perhaps even direct, the actions of global economic actors.
The citizen-consumer is not a new development. As Lizabeth Cohen shows in The
Consumers Republic, consumers have had a great deal of influence over American
politics for the last fifty years. But Cohen takes an opposite position to the one held by
Scammel and other proponents of the citizen-consumer model and argues that the terms
citizen and consumer should not be merged. Cohen’s history is not one where consumers
have successfully encouraged corporations to clean up their act in response to activism,
but rather one where consumers were successful in having legislation passed that
protected citizens and consumers alike, and forced corporations to adhere to new laws.
Cohen credits the passage of the Air Quality Act (1967), Child protection and Toy Safety
Act (1969), and the Toxic Substances Control Act (1976) to consumer activism.
The citizen-consumer model posits that individuals can affect the practices of
corporations, yielding a kinder, gentler TNC but as Naomi Klein says “When we start to
look to corporations to draft our collective labour and human rights codes for us, we have
already lost the most basic principle of citizenship: that people should govern
themselves” (2000; p 441).
Conclusion
In the modern consumer society the natural environment is overtaxed, the citizen
is overwhelmed, and the consumer is overdrawn. Of course, we need to consume in order
to live, and our lives will always feature consumption as a central theme, but the practices
of our consumer culture put our future in jeopardy and create a present that is unjust.
24
James Twitchell is right, we are “powerfully attracted to the world of things” (2000; p.
283). But the attraction is like a moth to a flame, and in the bright light of the consumer
spectacle we cannot see the more lofty goals we originally set out towards. “There is
more economic and fiscal capacity to address just about any social, economic or
environmental ill we could name than at any point in our history” (Yalnizyan, 2007: p.
10). There is sufficient global wealth to eradicate poverty and transition to sustainable
lifestyles and yet it seems that wealthy western countries are doing little to advance
toward either of these two laudable goals. In fact, as I’ve just shown, environmental
degradation is continuing at an ever-quickening rate and the income gap is growing faster
than ever.
The mass movement envisioned by Naomi Klein may not have yet arisen, but
change is in the air. The calls for citizenship and global governance continue to be
sounded. It is a mistake to imagine that they can be answered by the citizen-consumer.
We must make the world we want, not the mall we want. Ironically, the technology that
allowed consumerism to take on global proportions is the same technology that can allow
people to reject it and find another way. The World Social Forum is building momentum,
and offers a model of citizenship more fitting of the globalized world we now inhabit.
The work of fostering an engaged citizenry and establishing some form of global
governance will not be easy, but it is necessary. For if we continue to prioritize our
freedom as consumers over our responsibilities as citizens that freedom will devolve into
chaos as we battle over the scraps of what was once a beautiful world.
25
Bibliography
The American Presidency Project. Proclamation 5950 - National Consumers Week, 1989.
Retrieved March 27, 2007, from
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=23519
Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origins and spread of
nationalism. Revised Ed. London and New York: Verso
Anderson, E. (2007, April 21). Cut your spending, save the world. The Globe and Mail.
p. F1-2.
Assadourian, E., Gardner, G., and Sarin, R. (2004). The State of Consumption Today. In
L. Stark (Ed), State of the world 2004: A worldwatch institute report on progress
toward a sustainable society. (pp. xvii-xix). New York: W.W. Norton &
Company, Inc.
Assadourian, E., and Gardner, G. (2004). Rethinking the Good Life. In L. Stark (Ed),
State of the world 2004: A worldwatch institute report on progress toward a
sustainable society. (pp. 164-180). New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc
Barber, B. R. (1995). Jihad vs. McWorld. New York and Toronto: Ballantine Books
Barber, B. R., (2007). Con$umed: How markets corrupt children, infantilize adults, and
swallow citizens whole. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, Inc.
Bennett, W. L. (forthcoming). Branded Political Communication: Lifestyle Politics, Logo
Campaigns, and the Rise of Global Citizenship. In M. Micheletti, A. Follesdal,
and D. Stolle (Eds). The politics behind products. New Brunswick N.J.:
Transaction Books. [Electronic version] Retreived April 15, 2007, from
http://depts.washington.edu/ccce/assets/documents/pdf/NewBrandedPoliticalCom
munication(BennettChapterFinal)61002.pdf
Bohman, J. (1998). The Globalization of the Public Sphere. Philosophy & Social
Criticism, 24(2/3), 199-216
Caldwell, R. (2007, January 13). Less: not buying anything. The Globe and Mail, p. F7
Carr-Hill, R. and Lintott, J. (2002). Consumption, jobs and the environment: A fourth
way? Hampshire and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
The CIA World Fact Book. [Electronic version] retrieved April 21, 2007 from
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html
Cohen, L. (2003). A consumer’s republic: The politics of mass consumption in postwar
America. New York and Tornto: Knopf.
26
Conway, J. (2004). Citizenship in a Time of Empire: the World Social Forum as a New
Public Space. Citizenship Studies. 8(4). 367-381
Dauton, M. and Hilton, M. (Eds.) . (2001). The politics of consumption: Material culture
and citizenship in Europe and North America. Oxford and New York: Berg
Diamond, J. M. (2005). Collapse: How societies choose to fail or succeed. New
York: Viking
Drache, D. (2001). Introduction: The fundamentals of our time. In D. Drache (Ed.) The
market or the public domain? Global governance and the asymmetry of power.
London and New York: Routledge.
Elgin, M. (2007, April 20). Opinion: Why environmental groups are wrong about ewaste. ComputerWorld. Retreived April 20, 2007 from
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&t
axonomyName=mobile_devices&articleId=9017281&taxonomyId=75.
Falk, R. (2000). The Decline of Citizenship in an Era of Globalzation. [Electronic
version]. Citizenship Studies, 4(1), pp 5-17
Flavin, C. (2004). Preface. In L. Stark (Ed), State of the world 2004: A worldwatch
institute report on progress toward a sustainable society. (pp. xvii-xix). New
York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.
Freidman, T. L. (1999). The lexus and the olive tree. New York: Farrar, Straus and
Giroux.
Freidman, T. (2007, April 15). The Power of Green. New York Times, electronic edition.
Retreived April 15, 2007 from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/15/magazine/
15green.t.html?ex=1177473600&en=4cf0d5ed8a197015&ei=5070&emc=eta1
Held, D. (1998). Democracy and Globalization. In D. Archibugi, D. Held, and M. Kohler
(Eds). Re-imaging political community: Studies in cosmopolitan democracy.
Cambridge and Oxford: Polity Press
Holt, D. B. and Schor, J. B. (Eds.) . (2000). The consumer society reader. New York:
W.W. Norton and Company, Inc
Hurst, L. (2007, April 1). Don’t worry, be happy…or not. The Toronto Star. p A1 and A6
Isin, E. F. and Turner, B. S. (2002). Citizenship Studies: An Introduction. In E.F. Isin and
B. S. Turner (Eds.) Handbook of citizenship studies. London, Thousand Oaks and
New Delhi: Sage.
27
Kingwell, M. (2000). The world we want: virtue, vice, and he good citizen. Toronto,
Viking.
Klein, N. (2000). No logo: Taking aim at the brand bullies. Toronto: Knopf
McNally, D. (2002). Another world is possible: globalization and anti-capitalism.
Winnipeg, Arbeiter Ring Publishing
Micheletti, M. (2003). Political virtue and shopping: individuals, consumerism, and
collective action. Hampshire and New York: Palgrave Macmillan
Niedzviecki, H. (2006). Hello, I’m special: How individuality became the new
conformity. San Francisco: City Lights Books
Rosenau, J. N. (1992). The Relocation of Authority in a Shrinking World. Comparative
Politics. 24(3). 253-272
Sassen, S. (2002). Towards a Post-National and Denationalized Citizenship. In E.F. Isin
and B. S. Turner (Eds.) Handbook of citizenship studies. London, Thousand Oaks
and New Delhi: Sage.
Scammell, M. (2000). The Internet and Civic Enagement: The Age of the Citizen
Consumer. Political Communication. 17. pp 351-355
Steffen, A. (Ed.) . (2006). Worldchanging: A user’s guide for the 21st century. New York:
Harry N. Abrams, Inc.
Twitchel, J. (2000). Two Cheers for Materialism. In D. B. Holt and J. B. Schor (Eds.),
The consumer society reader. (pp. 281-290). New York: W.W. Norton and
Company, Inc
Yalnizyan, A. (2007, March). The rich and the rest of us: The changing face of Canada’s
growing gap. [Electronic version]. Toronto: Canadian Centre for Policy
Alternatives. Retreived April 19, 2007 from http://policyalternatives.ca/
documents/National_Office_Pubs/2007/The_Rich_and_the_Rest_of_Us.pdf
28