A Critique Of Consumerism?

[Sunstone]

In his book, Crunchy Cons, Rod Dreher writes:

“What do I mean by consumerism? It’s an uncodified materialist philosophy that considers the acquisition of goods and services at the least expensive price to be a fundamental social value. Consumerism fetishizes individual choice, and sees its expansion as unambiguous progress. A culture guided by consumerist values is one that welcomes technology without question, and prizes efficiency. A consumerist culture also tends to cede authority to the secular priesthood of scientists and other professional experts. Its idea of liberty involves the steady increase of the individual’s sovereignty (the choice thing again). A consumerist society encourages its members both to find and express their personal identity through the consumption of products. Its ultimate goal is the spread of happiness and well-being through the improvement of material condition, and the creation and general increase of wealth.


And if moral and spiritual values get in the way of that, well, hey babe, you can’t stop progress.”
​

Is this a fair criticism of consumerism, or is there something a bit sneaky about it?

Does Dreher attack consumerism as a covert means of attacking choice, science, and liberal values?

Or, does Dreher have a legitmate point?

Is there a better criticism of consumerism than the ones presented by Dreher here?

What are your views of consumerism?

 

[evearael]

...and prizes efficiency.

Sorry, I don't buy that. The rest of the quote is quite good, though.

Is this a fair criticism of consumerism, or is there something a bit sneaky about it? I tend to agree with that view.

Does Dreher attack consumerism as a covert means of attacking choice, science, and liberal values? When people camp out for days for the release of a movie at the theater or a video game or furby at the toy store, it certainly seems on par with some level of worship. I don't think choice is the problem. The conception of the correct choice being the one that elevates the individual is the problem.

Or, does Dreher have a legitmate point? Yes, he does.

Is there a better criticism of consumerism than the ones presented by Dreher here? Capital, Vol. 1 is extensive in its critique, though Marx is a bit long winded. It's slightly off-topic but you should really look into cultural materialism, if you haven't already.

 

[BrandonE]

...and prizes efficiency.

Sorry, I don't buy that. The rest of the quote is quite good, though.

I think he's right here, insomuch as efficiency in getting the product to the consumer is the be all and end all. Efficiency of the product itself is irrelevant, and decidedly not a value in a consumerist society.

Is this a fair criticism of consumerism, or is there something a bit sneaky about it? It doesn't seem sneaky to me. I don't know the context of the quote, so it's hard to say if he's being sneaky. It is apparent from the quote that he thinks consumerist values should be superceded by some other value set. If he left his views on that out of the overall context from which this was taken, perhaps that is sneaky.

Does Dreher attack consumerism as a covert means of attacking choice, science, and liberal values? Like I stated above, from this, I can't determine his motive. This brief excerpt seems pretty straight forward. His tone could lend itself to those ends, but I don't know if that's his aim.

Or, does Dreher have a legitmate point? Absolutely.

Is there a better criticism of consumerism than the ones presented by Dreher here? I don't know that it's better, or even a criticism of consumerism per se, but I just picked up The Paradox of Choice by Barry Schwartz today. It comes highly recommended to me and sounds like it will be a good read.

I'm obviously going to have to look into the context that you grabbed this bit from, Sunstone. Sounds interesting. Your questions about sneakiness have me curious about where he is coming from now.

Question for you, Sunstone, though I may answer my own question once I start digging into this guy. Do you think that Adbusters and similar organizations are being sneaky about something in their criticism of consumer culture?

 

[Sunstone]

Question for you, Sunstone, though I may answer my own question once I start digging into this guy. Do you think that Adbusters and similar organizations are being sneaky about something in their criticism of consumer culture?

As a matter of fact, I do. I think Adbusters uses the same psychological tactics to oppose advertising as advertising itself uses to manipuate people. What's wrong with that, though?

Well, one of the problems I see with advertising, regardless of what source it's from, is that -- far from relying on logic and reason to persuade -- it encourages people to act on mere unexamined associations. The net effect, IMHO, is to dumb people down.

 

[michel]

In his book, Crunchy Cons, Rod Dreher writes:

“What do I mean by consumerism? It’s an uncodified materialist philosophy that considers the acquisition of goods and services at the least expensive price to be a fundamental social value. Consumerism fetishizes individual choice, and sees its expansion as unambiguous progress. A culture guided by consumerist values is one that welcomes technology without question, and prizes efficiency. A consumerist culture also tends to cede authority to the secular priesthood of scientists and other professional experts. Its idea of liberty involves the steady increase of the individual’s sovereignty (the choice thing again). A consumerist society encourages its members both to find and express their personal identity through the consumption of products. Its ultimate goal is the spread of happiness and well-being through the improvement of material condition, and the creation and general increase of wealth.


And if moral and spiritual values get in the way of that, well, hey babe, you can’t stop progress.”
​

Is this a fair criticism of consumerism, or is there something a bit sneaky about it?

It is a fair assessment, but it's rather cynical look at values and morals.

Does Dreher attack consumerism as a covert means of attacking choice, science, and liberal values?

I'm not sure about 'attacking', but like I said, his whole attitude is a tad cynical.

Or, does Dreher have a legitmate point?

It is legitimate, but it focusses on the rat race keep up with the Jone's attitude which unfortunately is prevalent.
Is there a better criticism of consumerism than the ones presented by Dreher here?

What are your views of consumerism?

Just as Cynical as his. The younger generation are being led to believe 9by the media) that they must spend (and not only money, but money they haven't got.
Whenever the debts are faced, there will be sore heads.


Like Eve, I don't see the efficiency as being the efficiency of getting the goods to the consumer; it seems out of place.

 

[Flappycat]

Personally, I tend to look for products that give me the impression that its makers actually care about the quality of their workmanship, whether it is powered by high technology or is essentially available to any level of technology. I do have limitations on pricing, but this is really more a matter of necessity than anything else. I think that any responsible consumer should avoid products that are made cheaply but at the expense of our nation's work ethic, such as oppressive environments, poor benefits, or high turnover rates. Improving our workers' willingness to put out in the workplace would eventually drive down prices for everyone due to eventual returns in worker output.

 

[evearael]

I think he's right here, insomuch as efficiency in getting the product to the consumer is the be all and end all. Efficiency of the product itself is irrelevant, and decidedly not a value in a consumerist society.

I agree with you there.

 

[Sunstone]

Here are some of my criticisms of Dreher and comments on his thinking:

A consumerist culture also tends to cede authority to the secular priesthood of scientists and other professional experts.

Is this true? I think it could be reasonably argued that it's not. We live in a consumerist culture, and yet in America at least, we are seeing a revival of Evangelical and Fundamentalist religion which most certainly does not "cede authority" to a "secular priesthood". Hence, I think Dreher is off the mark here: consumerism, IMHO, has nothing necessarily to do with ceding authority to a secular priesthood.

Its idea of liberty involves the steady increase of the individual’s sovereignty (the choice thing again).

What's wrong with this idea of liberty? Dreher here betrays his conservative bias and preference for ultimate control of the individual by some authority, either the authority of the government or of the church.

Dreher's hidden agenda is to return us to a society in which authority and sovereignty rest not with the people themselves but with religious and political elites.

A consumerist society encourages its members both to find and express their personal identity through the consumption of products.

I believe this criticism of Dreher's is ultimately true. On this we agree.

Its ultimate goal is the spread of happiness and well-being through the improvement of material condition, and the creation and general increase of wealth.

To a certain extent, material well being is more or less a necessity for happiness, in so far as it is difficult to be happy when one does not have the material wealth to survive.

Moreover, the largest international survey ever done on happiness and material wealth that I'm aware of found that poverty was crucially linked to unhappiness. It also found, interestingly enough, that once someone is out of poverty and has a bit of a nest egg, their happiness does not significantly increase with additional wealth.

What Dreher leaves out of his criticism of consumerism is telling. For instance, he in no way criticizes consumerism for it's tendency to produce societies that live well beyond their means in ecological terms. That is, consumerist societies tend to consume the earth's resources at a non sustainable rate. This is a major concern about consumerism, yet Dreher completely ignores it.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

Is this a fair criticism of consumerism, or is there something a bit sneaky about it?

I don't think there is anything sneaky about and it is a fair criticism with some intellectual merits, though his premises are somewhat flawed (thus effecting his conclusion.

1. "Consumerism fetishizes individual choice, and sees its expansion as unambiguous progress".

The problem this premise is that it assumes "unambiguous progress", insinuating that economic growth is an end in itself. Consumerism is an effect of the pursuit of personal and national progress. In many cases this progress is defined purely by the individual and is relative to the individuals’ needs and desires. This is not a materialist fetish as much as it is the basic aspiration of any living animal. To increase the wealth of nations, the individuals require the freedom to produce and consume as they see fit, as this allows for the greatest growth. The purpose of growth is the security and welfare of the public at large, raising the standard of living for the nation’s poorest citizens. The fact that America's poor possess housing, air conditioning, televisions, and often times, automobiles, is a testament to the virtues of national economic growth. The Welfare of the people, not progress, is the end we pursue.

2. "A consumerist society encourages its members both to find and express their personal identity through the consumption of products".

This is also incorrect. It is advertising, not society, that encourages this connection between goods and identity. However, if people were not naturally susceptible to such marketing tactics, they wouldn't be used. A consumerist society encourages people to trade freely for the purpose of mutual welfare and social stability.

Does Dreher attack consumerism as a covert means of attacking choice, science, and liberal values?

I don't think so. The negative effects of consumerism are prevalent in all societies that practice some degree of capitalism and free trade. So are the positives. What Dreher is doing is focusing in on the negatives, while ignoring the positives.

Or, does Dreher have a legitmate point?

Yes. However, while there are moral negatives to consumerism, there are even more moral positives. For example, the preservation of liberty and individual choice, which he views (I assume) as being less important than idealistic social progress, where social and economic equality paramount.

Is there a better criticism of consumerism than the ones presented by Dreher here?

I think you can expand on the negatives a bit more than he did. I think you can point out that consumerism, for those who become dependant on it for their identity, tend to make a society shallow and boring. Some people also spend more time with their "things" than with each other, which hurts human relationships, while encouraging greedy behavior.

What are your views of consumerism?

I think it is an overall good, but not without its negative effects.

 

[Fluffy]

Is this a fair criticism of consumerism, or is there something a bit sneaky about it?

Other than "It’s an uncodified materialist philosophy that considers the acquisition of goods and services at the least expensive price to be a fundamental social value." I don't really see how it is a criticism though the author may have intended it that way.

I have never really associated any of the values he expressed with consumerism but then again I am not well read enough on the subject to say whether they should be included or not.

 

[BrandonE]

Its idea of liberty involves the steady increase of the individual’s sovereignty (the choice thing again).

What's wrong with this idea of liberty? Dreher here betrays his conservative bias and preference for ultimate control of the individual by some authority, either the authority of the government or of the church.

Dreher's hidden agenda is to return us to a society in which authority and sovereignty rest not with the people themselves but with religious and political elites.

What's wrong with this idea of liberty is that it elevates the individual to a godlike status. Consumerist society tries to persuade us that the ONLY value is our personal happiness. The happiness and well-being of those other poor schmucks be damned. Only by convincing us that WE are the most important being in our own world can the end results of this consumption be pushed under the rug. "Oh, those environmental concerns are silly. I NEED my Urban Assault Vehicle 3000 (to be happy)." The idea of liberty itself is a good thing. It is the extreme to which consumerist society pushes this liberty that is the problem. Thus the problem, as Dreher stated really is "the steady INCREASE of the individual's sovereignty".

After doing a little research on the man yesterday after replying, I do see where you were going with your questions, Sunstone. And you are definitely right. You hit alot of subtle points in your post that I missed.

Thanks for the discussion.

 

[Smoke]

A consumerist society encourages its members both to find and express their personal identity through the consumption of products.

Its ultimate goal is the spread of happiness and well-being through the improvement of material condition, and the creation and general increase of wealth.

These are two very different things.

I agree with the first statement, and I think that's a lot of what's wrong with a consumerist society. What's more pathetic than finding and expressing your personal identity through the consumption of products?

But I don't think acquiring more goods (including useless crap and things that will be obsolescent or out of style in short order) necessarily does anything to spread happiness and well-being or to improve the material condition of the consumer.

You need to buy more crap so there will be more jobs and the economy will prosper. If the economy prospers, you prosper. If you prosper, you can buy more crap.

The companies that sell us the crap have their crap made in Mexico and China to save money; that way, they make a better profit on their crap. So Sally lost her lousy job at the textile mill, and got a worse job at Wal-Mart. Now she really has to struggle to buy more crap, but at least Wal-Mart sells cheap paint. She needs to paint her living room a toxic shade of green, because that's what's in right now. It's hideous to look at, but it will show people she's keeping up with the latest crap.

Lame Deer:"Americans are bred like stuffed geese -- to be consumers, not human beings."

 

[BrandonE]

As a matter of fact, I do. I think Adbusters uses the same psychological tactics to oppose advertising as advertising itself uses to manipuate people. What's wrong with that, though?

Well, one of the problems I see with advertising, regardless of what source it's from, is that -- far from relying on logic and reason to persuade -- it encourages people to act on mere unexamined associations. The net effect, IMHO, is to dumb people down.

I was thinking about this again. Do you really think that Adbusters dumb down the debate? I think that by using the typical advertising methods to counter the prevalence of advertising they actually subvert the medium and cause you to think about it's omnipresence. I don't think that their anti-commercials are meant to subconsciously persuade you that they are right so much as they are intended to start a dialogue about the problem that otherwise goes totally overlooked. Only by starting a conversation in the first place can logic and reason even come into play. There's no debate at all if everyone is unaware of the problem.

Do you disagree Sunstone? If so, how else should the issue be raised to the level of national dialogue?

 

[Sunstone]

I was thinking about this again. Do you really think that Adbusters dumb down the debate? I think that by using the typical advertising methods to counter the prevalence of advertising they actually subvert the medium and cause you to think about it's omnipresence. I don't think that their anti-commercials are meant to subconsciously persuade you that they are right so much as they are intended to start a dialogue about the problem that otherwise goes totally overlooked. Only by starting a conversation in the first place can logic and reason even come into play. There's no debate at all if everyone is unaware of the problem.

Do you disagree Sunstone? If so, how else should the issue be raised to the level of national dialogue?

Adbusters uses what in the trade is called "associative advertising" to persuade people that advertising is manipulative and too pervasive. Associative advertising, in a nutshell, relies on the same classic psychology as Pavlov discovered in training his dog to salivate at the sound of a bell. That is, it does not rely on logic and reason, but on association alone. In that sense, Brandon, I think Adbusters is part of the problem rather than part of the solution. But, having said that, I recognize they are doing a good job making people aware of the problem in some ways. It's just that I believe all advertising, including Adbusters, teaches sloppy thinking.

You make some very good points, however, in that there might be no other way to get the issue on the national agenda.

 

[BrandonE]

Adbusters uses what in the trade is called "associative advertising" to persuade people that advertising is manipulative and too pervasive. Associative advertising, in a nutshell, relies on the same classic psychology as Pavlov discovered in training his dog to salivate at the sound of a bell. That is, it does not rely on logic and reason, but on association alone. In that sense, Brandon, I think Adbusters is part of the problem rather than part of the solution. But, having said that, I recognize they are doing a good job making people aware of the problem in some ways. It's just that I believe all advertising, including Adbusters, teaches sloppy thinking.

You make some very good points, however, in that there might be no other way to get the issue on the national agenda.

Fair enough. I know squat about advertising, and I suppose just by my knee jerk reaction to advertising as unfairly manipulative, you are probably right about the effect that Adbusters has. I'll have to look into "associative advertising" some more.

 

[coberst]

In a Commodified Society What Value Longevity?

Commodity—object of commercial value.

What is the “commercial value” of an object of great consumption but little production?

For a period of some two hundred years America had an every moving new frontier. One of the appeals of this ever-present frontier was the sense that there was always a place for the rugged individualist. A place existed for the individual who was enthused about the prospect of uninhibited growth where each individual could test his or her capacity to be all they could be. No one had an edge over the other person beyond character and motivation.

Darwin’s theory teaches us that mating and reproduction is the means whereby the species adapted to a changing environment and thereby created the possibility for survival of the species. Generally speaking the human species stops this procreation process before the age of forty. Biological evolution provides little means for adaptation in our species beyond forty years of age.

Human instrumental rationality has created a technology that continually increases the longevity of individuals of our species. Instrumental rationality is the ability to determine and execute the best means for reaching an established goal. We have determined the goal of ever extending life to be a valuable goal and are constantly extending human longevity.

Simultaneously with an extended life span we are continually shortening the social value of longevity. Like the rest of our commodities we have a throwaway culture for long-lived persons. Our society seems to mimic biological evolution in placing forty years as the beginning of the end of adaptability. Biological evolution terminates concern for those beyond the age of reproduction and our culture terminates concern for those beyond the age of commodity production.

Biological adaptation has abandoned us after forty, our instrumental rationality is responding to our unexamined desire to prolong life; how do we mange to survive as a species if we do not find a rational means to engage this challenge? The challenge is to create the societal value of human life after forty.

Where is the ever-moving frontier of expectations for the man or woman beyond the age of forty? Is age beyond forty to remain the beginning of a throw-away social value?

If you quibble about the number forty you may use fifty or sixty or seventy if you feel better about it.