Anti-consumerism refers to the sociopolitical movement against consumerism. Consumerism is a term used to describe the effects of the market economy on the individual. "The consumer" has become a derogatory term within sales companies and debt-management consultants, connoting the mindless purchasing and disposing of any product delivered through the market. Concern over the treatment of consumers has spawned substantial activism, and the incorporation of consumer education into school curricula. Anti-consumerist activism draws some parallels with environmental activism, anti-globalization, and animal-rights activism in its condemnation of modern organizations such as the McDonald's Corporation (see McLibel).

In recent years, there have been an increasing number of books (Naomi Klein's 2000 No Logo for example) and films (The Corporation, Surplus), which have to some extent popularized an anti-corporate ideology in the public.

Opposition to economic materialism comes primarily from two sources: religion and social activism. Some religions assert that materialism interferes with connection between the individual and the divine, or that it is inherently an immoral lifestyle. Some notable individuals, such as Francis of Assisi, Ammon Hennacy, and Mohandas Gandhi, have claimed that spiritual inspiration led them to a simple lifestyle. Social activists have asserted that materialism is connected to war, crime, and general social malaise. Fundamentally, their concern is that materialism is unable to offer a proper raison d'être for human existence.

Background

Anti-consumerism is often associated with criticisms of consumption starting with Karl Marx and Thorstein Veblen, but according to Veblen's 'Theory of the Leisure Class' consumerism can be traced back to the first human civilizations. Consumerism can also mean economic policies associated with Keynesian economics, and, in an abstract sense, refer to the belief that the free choice of consumers should dictate the economic structure of a society (cf. producerism, particularly in the British sense of the term). Comedian Bill Hicks and writer Pier Paolo Pasolini were strongly opposed to consumerism.

Politics and society

Many anti-corporate activists believe that the rise of large business corporations is posing a threat to the legitimate authority of nation states and the public sphere. It is felt that these corporations are invading people's privacy, manipulating politics and governments, and creating false needs in consumers. The sort of evidence that supports this belief includes invasive advertising (adware, spam, telemarketing, etc.), massive corporate campaign contributions in democratic elections, interference in the policies of sovereign nation states (see, for example, Ken Saro-Wiwa), and endless global news stories about corporate corruption (Martha Stewart and Enron, for example). Anti-consumerism protesters would point out that corporations' responsibility is to answer only to shareholders, giving human rights and other issues almost no consideration. In practice, the management of a limited company does have primary responsibility to their shareholders, since any philanthropic activities that do not directly serve the business could be deemed to be a breach of trust. This sort of financial responsibility means that multi-national corporations will typically pursue approaches that intensify labor and attempt to reduce costs. For example, they will (either directly, or through subcontractors) attempt to find low wage economies with laws which are conveniently lenient on human rights, the natural environment, trade union organization and so on (see, for example, Nike, Inc.).

Viktor Frankl had suggested that in the U.S., the engine behind consumerism is an extension of the "bread-winner" desire, an argument originally made by Veblen in his 1899 book.

An important contribution to the critique of consumerism has been completed by the French philosopher Bernard Stiegler, but very little of this has been translated into English. Stiegler argues that capitalism today is governed not by production but by consumption, and that the advertising techniques used to create consumer behavior amount to the destruction of psychic and collective individuation. The diversion of libidinal energy toward the consumption of consumer products, he argues, results in an addictive cycle of consumption, leading to hyper consumption, the exhaustion of desire, and the reign of symbolic misery. At the same time, however, he does not believe that simply opposing capitalism is a viable strategy.

Conspicuous consumption

Marx argued that the capitalist economy leads to the fetishization of goods and services, and the devaluing of the worth of a good or service, and instead focusing on its price in the market. In many critical contexts the term is used to describe the tendency of people to identify strongly with products or services they consume, particularly those with commercial brand names and obvious status-enhancing appeal, e.g. an expensive automobile or jewelry. It is a pejorative term which most people deny, having some more specific excuse or rationalization for consumption other than the idea that they are "compelled to consume". A culture that has a high amount of consumerism is referred to as a consumer culture.

To those who embrace the idea of consumerism, these products are not seen as valuable in themselves, but rather as social signals that allow them to identify like-minded people through consumption and display of similar products. Few would yet go so far, though, as to admit that their relationships with a product or brand name could be substitutes for healthy human relationships that sometimes lack in a dysfunctional modern society.

The older term conspicuous consumption spread to describe this in the United States in the 1960s, but was soon linked to larger debates about media influence, culture jamming, and its corollary productivism.An Anti-consumerism Stencil

The term and concept of conspicuous consumption originated at the turn of the 20th century in the writing of economist Thorstein Veblen. The term describes an apparently irrational and confounding form of economic behaviour. Veblen's scathing proposal that this unnecessary consumption is a form of status display is made in darkly humorous observations like the following:It is true of dress in even a higher degree than of most other items of consumption, that people will undergo a very considerable degree of privation in the comforts or the necessaries of life in order to afford what is considered a decent amount of wasteful consumption; so that it is by no means an uncommon occurrence, in an inclement climate, for people to go ill clad in order to appear well dressed.

Overcoming Consumerism is a growing philosophy. It is a term that embodies the active resistance to consumerism. It is being used by many universities as a term for course material and as an introduction to the study of marketing from a non-traditional approach.

An extreme view is that over-consumption threatens emotional destabilization of the global population, and that behavioral health professionals need to document and analyze the large group etiology that develops a subculture of pathological self-medication. This is seen to have impacts far beyond the immediate consumer group. While resources to confront the crisis must be developed within geographic areas inhabited by the affected population, interest and motivation is often prompted and facilitated by efforts from outside the areas most affected. Such methods as boycotts or moral purchasing, for instance, often exclude dealings with a population pathologically consuming an ecosystem or species - these are often successful at ending such consumption, e.g. European Union boycotts of Canadian seal fur from the Newfoundland seal hunt.See also: Adbusters

The concept flows from the theory of commodity fetishism - that people experience social relationships as value relations between things, e.g. between the cash in their wage packet and the shirt they want. The cash and the shirt appear to conduct social relations independently of the humans involved, determining who gets what by their in-built values. This leaves the person who earned the cash and the people who made the shirt ignorant of and alienated from their social relationship with each other.

Also, anti-consumerist thought often makes the link between the relentless consumerism advocated by both governments and advertisers, and the continued degradation and destruction of the natural environment. In this aspect the anti-consumerist standpoint overlaps somewhat with the environmental movement. As a result, some environmental activists (that may not defy the capitalism system as a whole) may engage in anti-consumerism lifestyles and activities, as freeganism.

Critics of Anti-consumerism

In 1999, the magazine Reason attacked anti-consumerism, claiming that Marxist academics are repackaging themselves as anti-consumerists.

James Twitchell, a professor at the University of Florida and popular writer, referred to anti-consumerism arguments as "Marxism Lite."

The chief correlation between Marxism and anti-consumerism is the Marxist conception of commodity fetishism as a theory of social relation.

Those critical of the anti-consumerism movements would argue that governments do legislate in ways that restrict the actions of corporations (see Sarbanes-Oxley Act) and that lawbreaking companies and executives are routinely caught and punished. In addition from the perspective of business ethics it might be argued that chief executives are not inherently more evil than anyone else and so are no more likely to attempt unethical or illegal activity more frequently than the general population.

The libertarian attack on the anti-consumerist movement is largely based on the perception that it leads to elitism. Namely, libertarians believe that no person has the right to decide for (or even suggest to) others what goods are "necessary" for living and which are not, or that luxuries are necessarily profligate, andthereforeargue that anti-consumerism is a precursor to central planning or a totalitarian society.