Consuming Morally Optional
-
Upload
nahid-ibrahimzade -
Category
Documents
-
view
225 -
download
2
Transcript of Consuming Morally Optional
-
269
ARTICLE
Consuming MoralityRICHARD WILK
This essay began as a set of exasperated notes while reading books about
consumption, such as Laschs (1979) The Culture of Narcissism, a complaint
about the shallowness of modern consumerism. Reading an early version
of Millers piece, The Poverty of Morality (this issue), prompted me to
revise that essay. The result is neither a critical response to Millers work nor
a completely separate and distinctive essay. We share literatures and critical
reactions,many field experiences and have exchanged many drafts, ideas and
conversations about consumption. Despite, or maybe because of, this
relationship, we do not agree about everything. Part of the difference is no
doubt due to my American perspective. I live in a state where more than
40 percent of adults are clinically obese and the roads are crowded with
mammoth sport-utility vehicles. On this side of the Atlantic it is easier to
take concepts like overconsumption and affluenza seriously. I have also
been deeply engaged for several years with the issue of global climate
change and I believe that consumption is the most urgent and fundamental
environmental issue that we face (Wilk, 1998).
My diagnosis of the role that moralism plays in the scholarly discourse
about consumerism parallels Millers. But rather than condemning the
moral thread, I suggest that consumption is in essence a moral matter,
since it always and inevitably raises issues of fairness, self vs group interests,
and immediate vs delayed gratification. These moral and ethical issues do
not arise after the fact, as justifications. Instead moral debate about
Journal of Consumer Culture
Copyright 2001 SAGE Publications
(London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi)
Vol 1(2): 269284 [1469-5405] (200111) 1:2; 269284; 019938]
06 Wilk (JB/D) 30/7/01 9:07 am Page 269
-
consumption is an essential and ancient part of human politics, an inevitable
consequence of the unique way our species has developed its relationship
with the material world.
There is no question that moralizing about consumption can be strate-
gically deployed during class conflict, inter-ethnic strife, nationalist or
fundamentalist agitation, religious anti-secularism, and even trade negotia-
tions. Academics have been (often unwitting) accomplices in this ideologi-
cal warfare, and as a group we need to be more aware of the ways our
analysis both builds upon and feeds ideological warfare over consumption
(McKendrick, 1982). As Miller says, we should debunk the myths about
consumption that are retailed in these situations instead of abetting the
moral censure of particular classes and groups. More than Miller, however,
I want to focus on the kinds of consumption that are socially, ecologically
and personally destructive, and maintain my own sense of outrage at the
excesses of consumer culture. Maintaining scholarly distance while engaged
in ethical activism is always a difficult task (Wilk, 1999). First I address some
of the dangers of moralism, and then explain why I think this moralism is
both inevitable and necessary.
MORAL THEORIESWhile recent scholarship on consumption rarely addresses fundamental
moral issues directly, the morality of consumption was a central issue to the
early utilitarian economists like Smith and Ricardo. Yet when economics
began its ascendancy in the late 19th century, it systematically purged its
language of morally tinged terms. In the utilitarian level playing field of the
economists imagination, people do not make moral choices; they satisfy
utilities and reveal their preferences. If they wanted to drink gin instead of
buying food for their children, or steal instead of work, this is only a
problem of adjusting costs and benefits.
Other social sciences tried to absorb the problem of consumption into
theories they had already developed for other purposes. Consumption
became an arena where social sciences demonstrate their ultimate moral
lessons, predict the future, and present a utopic alternative (Williams, 1982).
For sociology, consumption is the product of social decay; for psychologists,
the pathology of a malformed persona; and for anthropologists, the loss of
authentic culture. The most common position in all academic fields can be
traced back to Veblens (1989) sociological approach, in which social com-
petition and emulation motivated consumption. Veblen finds this striving
motivated by false and shallow values, leading to wasteful and extravagant
consumption that diverts capital from useful ends. If Veblen is right, all of
Journal of Consumer Culture 1(2)
270
06 Wilk (JB/D) 30/7/01 9:07 am Page 270
-
modern material goods and fashion are empty and arbitrary lacking
content and meaning, when we know they are actually rich in both.Veblen
gave us no criteria for telling which kinds of consumption are productive
and authentic, and which are wasteful and fake. This strain of critical
thought is very common among modern social critics, from Bloom to
Baudrillard.
Alongside the sociological tradition that criticizes consumption as
destructive to the group, is an equally moral critique that sees materialism
as a symptom of individual pathology. Freud, for example, thought that
objects are invested with meaning during a childs struggle to resolve the
conflict between love and authority. Fixation on an object occurs when the
child tries to get from the object what it no longer gets from its parents.
On a larger scale, all of modern society is acquisitive because of an
unnecessarily extreme repression of the individuals creative energy and
sexual power, linked to the deterioration of family and individual life in
modern industrial society. This is a constant theme in literature on con-
sumption that peoples needs and desires are a symptom of a failed attempt
to cope with the pressures of modernity, as in Lasch (1979): the desire for
goods is a symptom of a deeper sickness in the soul, the product of a self-
involved individual lost from moral purpose, for whom things have become
a substitute for relationships. This kind of psychological moralism is easily
politicized by conservative elitists,who see mass consumption as a symptom
of a democracy based on wealth and politics instead of culture, position and
education. Mass culture is a pale substitute for the real thing. However, the
same critique appears in only slightly different form among liberal com-
mentators like Barthes (1990) and Ewen (1988), who portray modern
consumption as a dream of identity or wholeness; modern life is so anony-
mous and people are so rootless and fragmented that they seek goods to
substitute for an internal emptiness, assembling a commodity self (Ewen,
1988: 79).
Marxs theory of consumer desire is embedded in his critique of capi-
talism, which alienates workers from their labor and its products. When
labor becomes a commodity, all things have monetary value, and all aspects
of life become commoditized. As people become alienated from their own
products, they seek to recapture what they have lost by consuming goods.
But because those goods are no more than factory produced commodities,
empty of the human relationships that give them meaning, they never
satisfy. The insatiable desire for goods is really a search for human whole-
ness. Marxs critique of consumer capitalism links the social, personal and
political together with a persuasive moral vision and a hardheaded politics.
Wilk / Consuming morality
271
06 Wilk (JB/D) 30/7/01 9:07 am Page 271
-
However, it also falls within the same moralistic tradition of social self-criti-
cism mentioned earlier, and it leads us back to the same dualism of the tra-
ditional and the modern. Commodity fetishism leads us into disregarding
what people have to say about their own consumption. Ultimately it pro-
poses that most desires for goods within a capitalist society are in some sense
false. At the same time, Marxs advance over Veblen and Freud was his per-
ception that fetishism is part of an economic system which exploits some
and rewards others. Marxs moralism was therefore essentially political rather
than social (Veblen) or personal (Freud).
AN HISTORICAL APPROACH TO AMERICAN MORALISMEven when writers are honest enough to admit that their own life is tex-
tured and furnished by consumer goods, theory and politics lead them to
moral judgments about consumption. Steven Fjellman (1992), in his loving
condemnation of the inauthenticity of Disney World, Vinyl Leaves, admits
to being a veritable child of Disney, and enjoying every minute of research
there. He is quite aware of the personal paradox that he also sees Disney
World as symptom, cause and symbol of everything he hates in the abstract
about modern consumer capitalism, media monopoly and the manipulative
banality of American culture.
Fjellman exhibits a very American strain of utopianism, finding in the
consumer dystopia of Disney a key to the ills of society at large. The great-
est irony is that Main Street in Disney World is a replica of the bygone
small town, which for many Americans represents a time before the con-
sumerist rat race. It is particularly important that the American utopic
vision posits a time of self-sufficient people who were satisfied with what
they had. Herzfeld (1991) calls this kind of imagery structural nostalgia.
The concerns of the present shape a particular image of the past as a kind
of inverted likeness, which helps people to rationalize and cope with the
daily contradictions of wealth and poverty, fantasy and reality, in modern
society. This utopia is usually projected into the distant past or onto primi-
tive society. Horowitzs (1985) history of American discourse about the
morality of consumption places this utopian vision within a continuing
stream of thought that emphasizes the dangers of decadence, the loss of
self-control, and the desirability of nonmaterial pursuits (1985: xi).
According to Horowitz, an earlier 19th-century moralism condemned the
putative profligacy of the poor and immigrant classes. An educated elite
tried to blame mass poverty on the poor themselves, who wasted their
resources on pleasure and immorality, drink and gambling, instead of
uplifting themselves. They sought, through scientific study of budgets and
Journal of Consumer Culture 1(2)
272
06 Wilk (JB/D) 30/7/01 9:07 am Page 272
-
standards of living, to define a natural and just ideal for a working-class
familys expenditures.
After World War I, the moralist agenda shifted to a critique of middle-
class society which portrayed the new mass consumption as fundamentally
corrupting. People now sought goods as empty rewards, to compensate for
the loss of real values that used to be provided by direct experience and
work. Consumerism became the major theme of a critique of modernism
in general, especially in the hands of conservative sociologists like Carle
Zimmerman (1936), who contrasted a life of egoistic sensation, immedi-
ate rather than deferred consumption, direct sensory experience, and
selfish hedonic pleasure, with traditional and isolated people who had
social stability, deferred gratification, altruism, and a commitment to
community.
There is an element of predictable class conflict to all this, the sound
of the privileged defining the pleasures of the poor as inferior, part of a war
of high culture against popular culture that can be traced through the
worlds stratified societies. Those with wealth attempted to define their
superiority in terms of things unobtainable with mere money breeding,
taste, and refinement. To use Bourdieus terms (1984) there was an increas-
ing stress on cultural capital obtained through family ties and elite education
as material capital became more widespread.
The American lesson shows that moralizing about consumption can be
put to many different political purposes by various classes and critics.
Horowitz demonstrates that different discourses about needs lie behind
each position,while ultimately there are no absolute standards of need. One
persons necessity can be anothers luxury. Even in the public sphere of
objective scientific fact, the American governments definition of the
minimum household budget, the official definition of necessities and lux-
uries, has repeatedly been subject to political manipulation. How much
tobacco was a necessity to a working class family? Why was money for
movies (almost 1% of the total) included in the emergency level WPA
budget for a family on the verge of starvation in 1935, while films were
considered a luxury just 10 years earlier (Horowitz, 1985: 156)?
What all these moralistic blandishments have in common is that they
condemn only particular forms of consumption. No modern traditions rec-
ommend that everyone drop their worldly possessions and take to the road,
begging bowl in hand.What most moralists argue instead is that some kinds
of consumption are good, others bad. A thousand impressionist paintings
are uplifting, a thousand pairs of shoes are indulgent. Gold bars in the bank
are prudent, a gold cross is holy, gold chains around the neck are cheap and
Wilk / Consuming morality
273
06 Wilk (JB/D) 30/7/01 9:07 am Page 273
-
flashy. And they make distinctions between good and bad consumption on
the basis of the social and economic positions of the consumers. A bank
manager in a Cadillac is respectable, while a bank teller who cannot send
his children to college because he is driving a Cadillac is reprehensible.
My point is that moral pronouncements about consumption are
inevitable, but not that they are arbitrary; on the contrary, they are highly
patterned, and they have a social and historical context. The United States
has its own particular history of moral debate about consumption, and we
should expect to find equally complex and rich histories elsewhere. Moral-
ism about consumption is a social phenomenon that cries out for more
study. We need to know more about who makes moral arguments, how
these arguments are deployed, what kinds of effects they have on others,
and how inequality is justified and rationalized by both rich and poor in
many different social contexts (e.g. Belk et al., 1989).
MORALISM AND THIRD WORLD CONSUMPTIONThe same kind of historical and social context that helps us understand the
moral critique of American consumerism also needs to be applied to moral
discourses about underdevelopment and consumption. There are echoes of
19th-century moralism in the idea that poor countries remain poor because
they waste their resources on showy public works, or through corruption
and the high living of leaders. But when we look at the prevailing theories
about third-world consumerism the parallels are much stronger with the
early 20th century moralism described by Horowitz. The consumers of the
third world are accused of accepting false idols, of trading away their real
valuables for cheap flummery, of the same kind of emptiness and anonym-
ity that frightened American social critics of the rising middle class.
Theories of underdevelopment include a number of different ideas that
can be grouped together as the global hegemony theory. A typical text is
Mattelarts Transnationals and the Third World:The Struggle for Culture (1983).
The thesis is that the transnational and multinational corporations, now the
most powerful entities in the world economy, want to supplant and destroy
local and national cultures. They substitute a bland consumer culture of
homogenized global brands like Kleenex tissues, McDonalds and Bayer
aspirin. In every place the local elite is recruited as agents for multinationals,
inculcated with a notion of progress that favors the products and ideas of
western metropolitan centers and commercial American popular culture.
The masses are seduced unwillingly through the temptations of mass media,
cheap entertainments and goods that offer empty promises of health,wealth
and satisfaction.
Journal of Consumer Culture 1(2)
274
06 Wilk (JB/D) 30/7/01 9:07 am Page 274
-
An anthropological adaptation of this approach is offered by Philibert
(1989), who argues that third-world consumption is a form of neo-
colonialism, in which cheap copies of metropolitan consumerism displace
local culture. Acculturated individuals purchase objects in order to attain
modernity and sophistication, but there is never enough behind the image.
Their desire is forever renewed but never satisfied (p. 63).This idea of global
hegemony requires the same kind of radical separation of the modern
from the traditional that stands behind other kinds of consumer moralism.
Philibert contrasts pre-capitalist systems where objects are signs of social
positions, to capitalism, where objects are themselves the objects of
economic competition. He uses this dichotomy to contrast the authentic
consumption of pre-capitalist societies with the dreamlike sleight-of-hand
where objects substitute for real social connections.
Similarly, Lundgren (1986), working in Belize on children and their
desires for foreign goods, sees blonde, blue-eyed dolls as an example of
third-world people accepting a hegemonic ideology of their own dark-
skinned inferiority. The blue-eyed doll is a token or symbol of Belizeans
aspirations to be white, powerful and American. In this interpretation,
spending money on useless dolls, like national spending on show projects
like dams and model cities, is a form of wish fulfillment where the symbol
replaces reality (cf. Wilk, 1995).
One glaring problem with the consumer imperialism thesis is that it
depends on selective false consciousness. Only a small elite group takes an
active hand in manipulating symbols; everyone else is too stupid or deluded;
they are doomed to emulation, wasting their money on blue-eyed dolls.
This is an attractive idea from one moral perspective, since it preserves the
status of Belizeans as innocent victims of powerful outside ideologies. But
it simultaneously condemns those victims false consciousness, and exiles
them to a shadow world of empty mimicry where they are no longer as
fully aware as the all-seeing anthropologist. We have to ignore a century of
consumer research that finds all peoples motivations for buying goods to
be complex, deeply symbolic, social, personal and contextual.
MORAL CONTRADICTIONSThese cases (including Millers own extensive work on Trinidad) show us
that we need to go beyond seeing the desire for goods like the blue-eyed
dolls as deluded, fetishistic, or dominated, as false consciousness. My own
work on consumption in Belize has consistently emphasized the role
Belizeans play as agents of change, and I have repeatedly argued against
those who would contrast todays shallow consumerism with a mythical past
Wilk / Consuming morality
275
06 Wilk (JB/D) 30/7/01 9:07 am Page 275
-
when Belizean culture was authentic. Condemning third-world consump-
tion as imitation and domination denigrates peoples creative, resistant and
expressive capabilities, and ignores the ways they take and use foreign goods
for their own purpose.
At the same time it is clear that people in developing countries cannot
make free choices about goods. They are not simply absorbing foreign
goods into their culture, and they often do not anticipate the way their con-
sumption will change the economy and culture of their country.Those who
have not been previously exposed to sophisticated marketing and advertis-
ing technologies are indeed vulnerable to fraudulent and extravagant claims.
Markets and prices are often manipulated in order to lure people into
dependence on foreign goods with cheap prices, to eliminate local alterna-
tives, and then raise prices once people have no other options (Wilk, 1997).
Coercion and seduction to buy products really do take place, in the context
of debt servitude, captive labor forces, and company stores (Ger and Belk,
1997).
Within every developing country there are groups that are particularly
vulnerable to addictive and exploitative forms of consumption. Aside from
the many historical cases where alcohol has helped destroy communities,
and the plagues of opium that afflicted hundreds of millions in Asia in the
19th century,we can see similar forms of destruction going on today (Cour-
tright, 2001). For example, public and social life in Belize has been devas-
tated by an epidemic of crack cocaine during the last 15 years. Groups
affiliated with Los Angeles street gangs fight for control of the local trade,
leading to armed conflict that takes a constant toll on bystanders. In a sense
we are all like crack addicts in a consumer society. On the one hand, we
make choices consistent with our beliefs and culture, we consume to solve
practical problems, to express ourselves, create social worlds, and build social
connections with other people. On the other hand, we also make choices
that are immediately or ultimately self-destructive, that erode or sever our
connections with family and friends, and cause misery and pain to others
in our communities. Most Belizeans I have met are perfectly aware that the
same system that brings them flush toilets and refrigerators has also pro-
vided crack and the ridiculously expensive Nike running shoes that their
children insist on. Almost everyone in consumer society must deal with
temptations and involuntary habits; I tried to give up smoking for 15 years,
and now I eat too much for my own good.
This is why we have to do more than testify to the active agency of
the poor, for their ability to take the foreign and incorporate it into new
kinds of authentic local culture. All forms of consumption are morally
Journal of Consumer Culture 1(2)
276
06 Wilk (JB/D) 30/7/01 9:07 am Page 276
-
ambiguous and problematic, whatever ones social role or position in the
world system. Consuming can be constructive or destructive, coercive or
free, a medium of domination or resistance, or both at the same time. These
become truly moral issues because there are so many contradictory goods
and bads where choices are not clear-cut. The one constant is that the
motives and outcomes of consumption inevitably raise moral debate. And
there are good reasons why it should.
WHY CONSUMPTION AND MORALITY CANT BE SEPARATEDOne reason consumption raises moral issues is because it is so central and
encompassing in modern society. Cross s (2000) history of the 20th century
argues that consumption gradually became the channel for dreams, a means
of counting time, the blueprint for progress and the embodiment of success.
Given this burden of meaning, how could we expect to discuss consump-
tion without raising issues about the state of the world and the direction it
is taking, requiring value judgment at every turn? Consumer culture has
expanded in concert with its critical discourses from right and left, vision-
aries and realists, rich and poor.This suggests that the moral dilemmas posed
by consumption are fundamental to the process that drives consumption to
begin with.
The role of moral discourse in maintaining everyday consumption is
well described in Millers (1998) A Theory of Shopping,where purchasing and
gifting appear as acts of love and sacrifice. Mark and Mimi Nichters (1991)
work on eating disorders among children in the United States provides
another model of how moral contradictions drive particular patterns of
consumption. They found that American kids, like their parents, show a
great deal of anxiety about their eating, and many children are on diets by
the time they are eight years old. The paradox is that dieting does not actu-
ally lead to thinner kids instead dieting and binge eating go together. More
concern and anxiety does not lead most people to actually cut down on
their consumption. Instead people pursue a cycle in which eating becomes
both sinful and enjoyable, and afterwards they atone and feel guilty by
dieting. The guilt eventually fades, and the cycle begins again when the
person feels that they have suffered enough,and deserve a reward.The moral
weight attached to eating actually drives expanded consumption.
The Nichters suggest that this sin/guilt cycle provides the basic rhythm
of consumer culture. Each day is divided into periods of restraint, work and
discipline, and periods of rest, release and consumption. We get coffee
breaks, and go back to work, take a lunch break, work more and then go
home to consume. The workweek, the year, and lifetimes all alternate hard
Wilk / Consuming morality
277
06 Wilk (JB/D) 30/7/01 9:07 am Page 277
-
work and moral discipline, with relaxation and eventually retirement. This
cycle links our consumption to work in a direct way, and suggests that the
pleasures of consumption are intimately linked to pain and sacrifice. You
cannot have one without the other. This is why virtuous diet foods are
advertised alongside luscious sinful cakes and extravagant dishes.
The moral and intellectual critique of consumption may therefore be
seen as having a secure role in the dynamics of consumer culture itself. Like
a priesthood, intellectuals provide a voice of constraint and discipline, an
essential counterpoint to the incentives to indulge and release that pervade
mass culture. Intellectuals and lawmakers are there to give voice to the
destructive possibilities inherent in the world of goods. Miller does a valu-
able service by asking us to question this role, and to find ways to go beyond
it. But moral discourse does more than occupy a structural position, conceal
interests, or provide satisfying and self-serving explanations. It also deals
directly with real fundamental and perennial problems that all human beings
have in common in dealing with each other and the material world.
MORAL CONFLICT OVER CONSUMPTIONIn any social setting, people confront a series of basic problems over the
implications of consumption. These issues revolve around problems of dis-
tributive justice, balancing the goals and desires of people, the ownership
and control of objects and resources, and the problem that consumption
can destroy or deplete resources. Because each persons consumption affects
others, the issue of the common good can never be escaped. People have
to monitor and find ways to police each others behaviour, to prevent free
riding and tragedies of the commons. And in almost any environment
people have to think about balancing immediate gratification with the
longer-term requirements of the future, including the needs of future
generations.
Moreover, consumption raises another very fundamental moral
problem: the need to define limits to individual autonomy, and to recog-
nize that people can and do make bad decisions about their own con-
sumption. Humans have found and created an amazing variety of drugs,
most of which can become addictive and destructive to both the user and
those who depend upon them. The moral question as to when a group has
the right to control the self-destructive consumption of an individual is
longstanding, and has no simple solution. Many forms of consumption have
an addictive quality, and compulsive gambling and shopping are widely
recognized as social as well as individual problems (OGuinn and Faber,
1989). People really do spend all their money on drugs, leaving their
Journal of Consumer Culture 1(2)
278
06 Wilk (JB/D) 30/7/01 9:07 am Page 278
-
children destitute and starving. They do drink themselves to death. Faced
with a friend or relative who is destructively addicted, anyone is forced to
face moral questions,which have a tangible basis in the everyday, not in aca-
demic or intellectual discourse (though we can expect authorities to have
a lot to say about the morality of addiction).The moral issues raised by con-
sumption therefore have (at least) a dual nature; they are both grounded in
common human experience, in practical reason, and at the same time they
are part of public discourse about morality, a discourse that has a broader
cultural, symbolic, and political context.
This should help us distinguish between the rhetorical discourse about
Americanization and real influence by the United States on global patterns
of consumption. In the first, countries around the world debate the issues
of local and global, past and future, using the United States as a rhetorical
symbol (Wilk, 1993). The USA can symbolize everything from affluent
democracy to the Great Satan. In the second, the tremendous economic
and political power of the United States has direct effects on consumption
everywhere on the planet. For well over a century the United States has
extended its global power through aggressive marketing of consumer prod-
ucts, undercutting prices of local farms and industries, anchoring insti-
tutions like multinational corporations and the International Monetary
Fund that have transformed the economy everywhere (see Greider, 1997).
There is only a loose and variable relationship between the moral rhetoric
about Americanization and the complex morality of Americas role as a
consumer in the global economy far and away the largest per capita user
of energy and material, and the largest emitter of waste.
OVERCONSUMPTION?Every community makes some attempt to regulate the consumption of
individuals when it causes damage to others (though in many states the
leaders are exempt from the rules). During the last two centuries, the scale
of trade, communications and migration has extended the size of the con-
sumption community, and now it includes most of the world. The con-
sumption of one group can have direct consequences on resources and
people at a vast distance. When business partners in Hong Kong cement
a deal over a $2,000 delicacy (for example the lips of exotic fish) in an
exclusive restaurant, they are helping kill the last remaining reefs in distant
parts of the Pacific ocean (Safina, 1997: 384407). The pursuit of con-
venience through fast-food meals, besides fueling an epidemic of obesity,
has driven the complete reorganization of agriculture in the United States
and many other countries, concentrating ownership in corporate hands,
Wilk / Consuming morality
279
06 Wilk (JB/D) 30/7/01 9:07 am Page 279
-
disempowering labor, increasing pollution, and compromising the quality
of the entire food chain (Schlosser, 2001). Looking at almost any com-
modity chain, one can trace connections all across the globe, linking groups
of people who may not even know of each others existence. Because
affluent people are so far removed from the consequences of their con-
sumption, conventional social and moral controls seem to have little force.
Even with the best intentions, most people simply have no access to the
information they would need to make moral choices about their own
consumption.
From this perspective, what is needed is a new kind of moral debate
about consumption on the global scale, a discourse that cannot be contained
by the moral values of a single culture. The conventional setting for this
kind of discourse has been in international political meetings like the
United Nations, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the World
Bank, and now the World Trade Organization (WTO). Moral issues are
almost always subordinated to the economics of costs and benefits. Only in
the last 15 years, with the emergence of global atmospheric change as a
central environmental issue, has international debate about consumption
and morality become more explicit (Camacho, 1995).
The problem of climate change has no natural boundaries since the
atmosphere is a common resource. The entire planet is the subject of a
massive uncontrolled experiment, in which a minority of the population is
doubling the concentration of CO2 and other greenhouse gases during a
single century, with no idea of the consequences for the future. There is no
way to approach the issue without starting with the fact that about 20
percent of the worlds population is responsible for 80 percent of the green-
house gases. All the economic activity that produces these gases is ultimately
driven by consumption (Stern et al., 1997). When the average consumer in
the United States is using materials and energy at 20 times the rate of
Africans, we cannot envision any kind of action that does not rest upon
some moral foundation in concepts of fairness, rights and consequences for
the future. Much of the texts of the Agenda 21 agreements and the Kyoto
accords on climate change are actually concerned with the different moral
positions about who is to blame,who is responsible for action, and who will
bear the costs. The Kyoto accords take a moral position that countries that
have polluted the most in the past should pay the most clean-up costs, and
poor countries should not have to pay the costs of reducing their emissions,
even if they are major polluters. Since then the Republican Party in the
United States has insisted that this scheme is unfair.
While global moral discourse has had a slow and uneven start in the
Journal of Consumer Culture 1(2)
280
06 Wilk (JB/D) 30/7/01 9:07 am Page 280
-
official political arena, new kinds of activist and oppositional movements
have been growing in many countries that take global consumption as a
central moral issue.While the recent demonstrations against the WTO have
been very heterogeneous, the publications and statements of many partici-
pants make explicit reference to consumption issues. While some of the
arguments are familiar appeals to a mythical self-sufficient past, condem-
nations of false consciousness and the like many in the anti-WTO move-
ment have a very sophisticated understanding of trade issues, multinational
corporations, commodity chains, and the effects of structural adjustment
policy (e.g. Global Exchange, 2001).
At the same time that people are questioning the global social and
environmental effects of consumer culture, other organizations challenge
the taken-for-granted assumption that greater consumption makes people
happier. In the United States this movement has acquired the dubious labels
of voluntary simplicity or simple living, forming a heterogeneous group
that includes neo-primitivists, romantic back-to-the-land localists, people
looking for ways to downshift to less stressful jobs, environmental activists,
and retirees (Etzioni, 1998). Some of the major texts have sold millions of
copies (e.g. Dominguez and Robin, 1999). Many of their arguments are
traditional American consumption moralism. They often idealize native
peoples as primitive ecologists, and are willing to condemn people in
developing countries because they aspire to even a fraction of American
affluence, instead of appreciating their authentic poverty. But while they
argue that people would ultimately be much happier if they were less inter-
ested in consumer goods, and more engaged with their local communities,
most also place their moral stand in the context of an overpopulated world
with limited resources. Many members of the movement argue that the
American mode of consumption is immoral because it depends on the
poverty of others and because the world cannot sustain it: how can we live
like this while the rest of the world barely has clean water? These are the
only people I know who are developing a real political and personal
program for reducing consumption. Faced with people whose commit-
ments I respect, who are working to make necessary changes in the right
direction, I find myself uncomfortable about attacking their moral ideol-
ogy. If their moral and religious arguments have a real effect, why should I
pick them apart?
I certainly agree with Miller that all human life is based on material-
ism, but I firmly believe that not all materialism is equal. We do not have
to be nave accomplices to misguided moralism, and we certainly need to
get our facts straight before we jump to take positions that condemn certain
Wilk / Consuming morality
281
06 Wilk (JB/D) 30/7/01 9:07 am Page 281
-
kinds of consumption. Like Miller, I was drawn to consumption as a
research issue just because it seemed a central moral problem, and I agree
with him that moral issues can never be separated from consumer culture.
But from my perspective, those who engage in moral discourse about con-
sumption, both on the left and right, are potential allies, even if their his-
torical analysis is weak. We should certainly convince them that their
arguments should not rest on mythical others, or caricatures of the poor.
But the overriding issue is an increasingly likely future in which everyone
will suffer from the damage done to our planet. It is more important to
attack the regime that drives the destruction, not other critics of that
regime, no matter how misguided.
While writing this essay I received an email describing a protest by
religious leaders and environmentalists outside a car dealership in Massa-
chusetts, asking shoppers to buy something other than a gas-guzzling sport-
utility vehicle. As Bill McKibben, one of the organizers said:
These lots are where Americans make the most environmentally
significant decisions of their lives, and thats why a hundred of us
were there, in the pouring rain to remind our neighbours that
these private decisions have a public dimension. That in this
case, how they spent their money was not absolutely their own
business. (2001)
I agree, and while I may have cause to be suspicious of McKibbens agenda
(and I dont agree with a lot that he has written), I will be right out there
protesting along with him, the next chance I get.
ReferencesArgyle, Michael (1999) Causes and Correlates of Happiness, in Daniel Kahneman,
Ed Diener and Norbert Schwartz (eds) Well-Being:The Foundations of Hedonic
Psychology, pp. 35373. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Barthes, Roland (1990) The Fashion System. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Belk, Russell (1983) Worldly Possessions: Issues and Criticisms, Advances in Consumer
Research 10: 51419.
Belk, R.W.,Wallendorf, M. & Sherry, J. (1989) The Sacred and the Profane in
Consumer Behavior: Theodicy on The Odyssey, Journal of Consumer Research 16
( June): 138.
Bourdieu, P. (1984) ????
Camacho, Luis (1995) Consumption as a Theme in the North-South Dialogue,
Philosophy and Public Policy 15(4): 325.
Chin, Elizabeth (2001) Purchasing Power: Black Kids and American Consumer
Culture. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Courtright, David T. (2001) Forces of Habit: Drugs and the Making of the Modern World.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Journal of Consumer Culture 1(2)
282
06 Wilk (JB/D) 30/7/01 9:07 am Page 282
-
Cross, Gary (2000) An All-Consuming Century. New York: Columbia University Press.
Dominguez, J. and Robin,V. (1999) Your Money or Your Life. New York: Penguin.
Etzioni, Amitai (1998) Voluntary Simplicity: Characterization, Select Psychological
Implications, and Societal Consequences, Journal of Economic Psychology 19: 61943.
Ewen, Stewart (1976) Captains of Consciousness:Advertising and the Roots of Consumer
Culture. New York: McGraw Hill.
Fjellman, Stephen (1992) Vinyl Leaves:Walt Disney World and America. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Ger, Gliz and Belk, Russell W. (1997) Id Like to Buy The World a Coke:
Consumptionscapes of The Less Affluent World, Journal of Consumer Policy
21(2): 2316.
Global Exchange (2001) Website at http://www.globalexchange.org/economy/
Greider,W. (1997) One World, Ready or Not:The Manic Logic of Global Capitalism. New
York: Simon & Schuster.
Herzfeld, M. (1991) A Place in History: Social and Monumental Time in a Cretan Town.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Horowitz, Daniel (1988) The Morality of Spending. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Lasch, Christopher (1979) The Culture of Narcissism. New York: Warner Books.
Lundgren (1986) ????
Lynd, Robert S. and Lynd, Helen Merrell (1929) Middletown:A Study in American
Culture. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
McCracken, Grant (1988) Culture and Consumption. Bloomington: Indiana University
Press.
Mattelart, Armand (1983) Transnationals and the Third World:The Struggle for Culture.
South Hadley, MA: Bergin and Garvey.
McKendrick, Neil (1982) Commercialization and the Economy, in N. McKendrick,
J. Brewer & J.H. Plumb (eds) The Birth of a Consumer Society:The Commercialization
of Eighteenth Century England. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
McKibben, Bill (2001) What Would Jesus Drive?, Grist online at
http://www.gristmagazine.com/grist/maindish/mckibben060501.stm
Miller, Daniel (1998) A Theory of Shopping. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Mukerji, Chandra (1983) From Graven Images: Patterns of Modern Materialism. New
York: Columbia University Press.
Nichter, Mark and Nichter, Mimi (1991) Hype and Weight, Medical Anthropology 13:
24984.
OGuinn,Thomas C. and Faber, Ronald J. (1989) Compulsive Buying: A
Phenomenological Exploration, Journal of Consumer Research 16: 14757.
Philibert, Jean-Marc (1990) The Politics of Tradition: Toward a Generic Culture in
Vanuatu, in F. Manning and J. Philibert (eds) Customs in Conflict, pp. 25173.
Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview.
Safina, Carl (1997) Song for the Blue Ocean. New York: Henry Holt.
Sahlins, Marshall (1996) The Sadness of Sweetness, Current Anthropology 17(1):
395428.
Stern, R., Dietz,T., Rutan,V., Socolow, R. & Sweeney, J. (eds) (1997)
Environmentally Significant Consumption. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
Wilk / Consuming morality
283
06 Wilk (JB/D) 30/7/01 9:07 am Page 283
-
Schlosser, Eric (2001) Fast Food Nation. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Taussig, M. (1980) The Devil and Commodity Fetishism in South America. Durham:
University of North Carolina Press.
Veblen,Thorstein (1899) The Theory of the Leisure Class. New York: Macmillan.
Williams, Rosalind (1982) Dream Worlds: Mass Consumption in Late Nineteenth Century
France. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Wilk, Richard (1993) Its Destroying a Whole Generation: Television and Moral
Discourse in Belize, Visual Anthropology 5: 229244.
Wilk, Richard (1995) Consumer Goods as Dialogue about Development: Colonial
Time and Television Time in Belize, in J. Friedman (ed.) Consumption and Identity,
pp. 97118. Chur, Switzerland: Harwood Academic.
Wilk, Richard (1997) Household Ecology: Economic Change and Domestic Life Among the
Kekchi Maya of Belize. De Kalb: Northern Illinois University Press.
Wilk, Richard (1998) Emulation, Imitation, and Global Consumerism, Organization
& Environment 11(3): 31433.
Wilk, Richard (1999) Whose Forest? Whose Land? Whose Ruins? Ethics and
Conservation, Science and Engineering Ethics 5(3): 36774.
Wilk, Richard (2001) Towards an Archaeology of Needs, in Michael Schiffer (ed.)
Anthropological Perspectives on Technology, pp. 10722. ????: University of New
Mexico Press.
Zimmerman, Carle (1936) Consumption and Standards of Living. New York: D. Van
Nostrand.
Richard Wilk is ???? Address: ???? [email: [email protected]]
Journal of Consumer Culture 1(2)
284
06 Wilk (JB/D) 30/7/01 9:07 am Page 284