April 26: The Politics of "Ethical" Consumption

[Shan]

After completing this week’s readings, I’m left with these questions:
What is the good life?
What is the common good? Is one more individualistic and selfish (the
good life) and the other more concerned with the greater, or public,
good? Is one about being a consumer and the other about being a
citizen? Are they mutually exclusive? Are they connected—and, if not,
how can they be linked? How are our visions of each shaped by the ways
that we live in our socio-economic contexts? What assumptions that
accompany our ways of life are implicitly underlying our notions of
the good life and the common good? How might we forge new visions of
the good life and the common good so that we are living sustainably?

Matthew Hilton’s essay brought these questions to mind with his
description of the affluent society that emerged in the U.S. and
Europe following World War II. I read his essay as a narrative of the
rise of the consumer and the consumer movement in a national and
global political and economic context in which competition between
international actors (states in the West versus the Soviet bloc)
hinged, in large part, on a vision of the good life and the method for
getting there. Hilton makes the point that the ideal in the Western
context was that the good life depended upon “a consumer society open
to everybody, in which all could participate and in which all could
operate fairly”; protections for the consumer “existed so that every
citizen could enjoy the good life” (80). This essay helped me think
about how we, as Americans, arrived at some of our primary assumptions
about the good life.

Margaret Willis and Juliet Schor’s article offers another view—this
one of the vanguard in the redefinition of the good life and the
common good. The authors show the strong relationship between
conscious consumption and activism amongst a certain portion of the
American public. These front-runners are demonstrating an “integrated
lifestyle” that allows them to participate in the consumer society in
ways that take both self- and public interest into account, so they
are not choosing between the good life and the common good—they are
blending the two in a variety of ways (13).

I don’t have answers to my own questions, but I can see how everything
we’ve been reading all semester does point to this broader set of
issues. It’s going to take me a while to sort it all out.

[L Carfagna]

The articles this week bring me back to what seems to be a recurring line of questioning for me throughout the course: is coherence necessary for sustainability?  Hilton points to a level of isomorphism among consumer protection systems across states, despite variance among selected consumer movements and structural conditions.  His argument could have been strengthened by considering some of the mechanisms of isomorphism as considered by neo-institutional theory, but regardless he does acknowledge isomorphism.  Prothero, McDonagh and Dobscha hodge-podge together the green commodity discourse and evidence of its existence, diffusion, and potential for supplanting the dominant social paradigm.  Forno and Ceccarini assess political consumerism in Italy while Willis and Schor challenge that work like Forno and Ceccarini’s is not enough to speak for conscious consumption in the American context.  Both sets of authors link political involvement to consumption (whether defined as political or conscious), and while I take issue with Forno and Ceccarini’s design, this link is important to understanding consumption that has some type of goal in mind.  At what point, however, does this become teleological, and does that make it problematic? (cue ecological modernization)  This question brings me back to my initial question of coherence. 

 

Throughout the course (and this week’s articles) we’ve learned how there are a variety of reasons people turn consumption into something with a political or conscious component, or even simply consume in a political or conscious way without serious considerations of why they are doing such.  We’ve debated the issue of coherence and perhaps out of practicality, have someone concluded that its impossible to believe there is one way to achieve sustainability.  Does my father’s farmshare mean less then mine if he’s doing it because his reference group is doing it and I’m doing it because I believe in supporting local agriculture, for both labor and environmental reasons?  It’s also interesting, as Hilton suggests, that despite such variance among our conception of “consumer”, our historical relationships with that term, and the structural conditions to support that term, that isomorphism is occurring in consumer protection systems.  Could the same prove true for a sustainability system?  From facebook groups to Al Gore (thanks Prothero et al), will we arrive at similar systems that mimic each other?  If so, might it be important to start asking why?  To me (perhaps because of my orgs and institutions interest), Hilton’s mention of isomorphism seems most startling and quite worthy of our analytical attention.  Is there a more powerful consumer protection system (cps) that other States are copying because they are required to be in compliance or alignment with that State (coercive isomorphism)?  Is there a belief that one cps is more right than another and thus States should move to copy it (normative isomorphism)?  Or are States truly just garbage-canning together whatever seems to work and borrowing from existing seemingly well working systems (mimetic isomorphism)?  If we could understand isomorphism, we might better understand the efficacy of the consumer, conscious or otherwise.  Thus, this conversation of coherence may further prove ineffectual and unimportant if the mechanisms that govern change are scripted by a structural paradigm we aren’t exploring.

[Monique]

Ideological shifts are critical to moving consumers, corporations, and
governments towards more sustainable consumption. The articles for
this week provide examples of such shifts and corresponding entry
points or levers for change. Hilton’s article traces shifts in state
orientations toward consumer protection that have led to vastly
improved outcomes for citizens who live within certain jurisdictions.
Prothero, McDonagh, and Dobscha highlight ways that consumers have
been contributing to changes in the “dominant social paradigm” by
incorporating sustainability considerations into their everyday
purchasing decisions. Their typology of green consumers shows that
there may be varying levels of both the degree to which consumers are
conscious of the impacts of their consumption on improving
sustainability outcomes and the degree to which their intentions have
individual versus collective aims.

Seyfang’s application of cultural theory worldviews to an analysis of
British policy towards sustainable consumption highlights some
potential entry points to broadening a dialogue and incorporating
broader segments of society into the policy formation process. I do
wonder how well the current 2-axis spectrum captures the range of
worldviews and whether the descriptions of each of the four categories
capture the sentiments of those who fall squarely within a particular
quadrant (p325).

With regard to the Micheletti and Stolle article, I wonder what the
relative impacts of thematic and episodic framing are in campaigns for
consumer action. What is the relative potential of each in supporting
a push for paradigmatic shifts?

Forno and Ceccarini found that “political consumerism does not crowd
out more established repertoires of citizen actions, but rather
complements and reinforces them (p213)”. How can we help to make
obvious connections between the roles of consumer and citizen?

[Margaret Lister]

After the week's readings, my primary question is how the consumer protection dialogue fits in with the sustainability dialogue. I read Luka's post and wasn't sure how much questions of coherence mattered until I sat down to reflect on this. I think the movement for "generally safer products" often falls under the sustainability heading, but is strongly motivated by concerns about health and consumer protection (Szasz's extreme example of "inverted quarrantine".) 

Hilton writes, "If consumers were to behave with confidence, providing the impetus for economic growth and making all the improvements in technology and productivity worthwhile, then they required assistance and support" (70). I don't think that consumers are still getting the "assistance and support" he writes about, though recent outbreaks of food diseases and product recalls may be spurring a movement towards further protection. While these movements may coincide with sustainability goals, we won't be able to move towards big sustainability goals-- reducing carbon emissions, less reliance on non-renewable resources-- if the movement is not united under sustainability rather than personal worries.

I also thought Ceccarini and Forno's discussion of the political consumer was quite interesting, especially their findings of activism within the "white belt". It actually gave me hope for coherence, since religious and other cultural groups are able to step outside their traditional realm to adopt sustainability issues and practices.

[Gemma]

Prothero, McDonagh, and Dobscha explain the emerging paradigm shift in the DSP that has been occurring in the 21st century. There is also a converging of macro and micro practices, which has extended into the green movement and reflected these changes in the DSP. I am interested by the four different titles they assign to "green consumer/citizens." While we have briefly mentioned this topic in class I am still wondering if it makes a difference that some consumers are purchasing green products for selfish reasons while others are purchasing to improve society? This article seems to say that either way both consumers are contributing to the same shift in DSP. Are authors like Szasz wrong then in saying that inverted quarantine is counterproductive in the Green Movement? Consumption is incredibly important in this day and age because it is "a locus for change" and it has the "capacity to alter the DSP" (8). Will the conditions emerge on their own that will force people to become less individualized and act more in a collective manner? If this does occur, will people be conscious of this or will it just happen on its own? Will the destruction of the planet, climate change, increased natural disasters, or any other environmental problems reach such a point that it will force people together and act collectively? Lastly, I want to know more about "deliberative democracy" within corporations (9). DIPs are designed to "engage multiple stakeholders in the decision-making process." I find it incredibly hard to believe that a new form of business will evolve that will give workers in developing countries a voice in large corporations. My father works for a company that designs electronics in the United States, but then they ship these blue prints to China to be manufactured there for a very small price. The man who owns the large factories refuses to talk about his laborers because he claims it is a part of their culture/what is normal conditions for the Chinese to be working in. In order to fix this system the American company, American DJ, would have to be instructed in how to deal with these types of constituents and participate with these labor sources in a democratic way. I don't think American DJ would be willing to go through that kind of hassle. It would be too costly. Before they would fix the problem they would either look for another country to build the lighting controllers cheap or just have them built in the United States. Does the Green Movement have enough momentum to change such engrained and terrible practices such as workers rights? It seems incredibly daunting to strive toward retooling business philosophy.

[Hyemi]

One of this week’s readings, Willis and Professor Schor’s “Does
Changing a Light Bulb Lead to Changing the World? Political Action and
the Conscious Consumer,” examines the relationship between conscious
consumption (cc) and political engagement in the United States as the
title implies. While traditional perspective is that consumption is at
odds with activism in contradictory manner, recent studies reveal that
the relationship between consumption and activism can be understood in
complementary manner. However, these findings mainly come from Europe
and Canada. On the other hand, traditional view indicates that
individual consumption is motivated by self-interested, and therefore,
this consumption is rather unfavorable to collective political
actions. In regards to these existing debates, this article’s authors
raise the need to examine the relationship of cc and activism in the
United States. The authors use data from two sources, 2004 GSS and
2008 CNAD Survey, for the purpose.

The authors find that cc and activism have a strong relationship,
unlike traditional perspectives. Also, this relationship exists in
green/ethical consumption and in decreased consumption. Moreover, self-
interest and public interest are also related to each other. Although
whether cc is the cause the activism is unexamined, cc may be deduced
as a cause of activism given the earlier studies. According to Willis
and Schor, one of the findings from the study is that conscious
consumers’ integrated lifestyle already relates to political activism.

I think this study is very clearly and logically developed. Thanks to
the extensive and historical examination about the cc and activism, I
could reorganize my knowledge on this issue. I agree with most of the
results. However, as I prepare for the final paper, I still wonder
whether green consumers indeed are committed to the activism. I found
that consumers are more motivated by self-interests such as their own
well being, or family’s safety rather than communal benefits to the
world, even though these consumers seem to be interested in the
activism. To support my opinion of self-interest having more
significance than communal benefits, I should conduct more formal
studies to support, or lack thereof.

I think that the reasons for my opinion may be based on the
possibilities of: activism may be distinguished to individual and
collective; and consumer’s varying level commitment to cc. Is
“collectiveness” a requirement of the activism? May be perhaps
activism divided into individual activism and collective activism? If
possible, can this distinction lead to different findings
respectively? I am also questioning whether the level of strength of
the relationship between cc and activism can be applied to all the
consumers. I think it will be interesting to examine the intensity of
cc in relation to the level of political involvement.

On the other hand, I would like to know about a consumers’ integrated
lifestyle in relation to political activism. Also, I want to further
learn the ideas of how this article's results are related to Alerto
Melucci’s study on identity, social action, and lifestyles.

[Emilie Dubois]

Shan, I too have spent a serious amount of time thinking about the how
collective, American definition of "the good life" is divorced from
the way we try to bring it about through purchases in our daily
lives. The group of papers we've read this week try to answer
questions about the behaviors and demographic characteristics of
consumers who are politically motivated, sustainability focused and
historically situated. Several of these authors suggest that there is
potential in the hybrid area between the consumptive sphere and the
social movement. How can activists and academics leverage the
dialectic between individual and group 'good' in the consumer arena to
bring about meaningful change in behavior patterns?

I have been studying an upscale lifestyle clothing retailer that
attaches high price tags and a narrative of rugged individualism to
the visions of "the good life" you questioned about in your post.
Recently, the company hosted a contest on its facebook website
challenging its 42,607 fans to come up with the best definition of
"the good life." Over 1,100 people wrote about what they believed
made life good. Though this brand is synonymous with status and
wealth, not a single "facebook fan" wrote about those things
outright. There was the occasional mention of status items like
sailboats and golf clubs, but, on the average the posts expressed how
unimportant those things were to the fans of this brand. Although I
can't prove it, I would make an educated guess that the fans of this
brand are very different demographically and politically from the
political consumers and sustainability activists we're considering
this week. How can we use these empirical studies to expose points of
contradiction like the one I've talked about here in current consumer
culture? What do the locations (classed, regional, racial, gendered,
etc.) of these contradictions mean for our understanding and critique
of contemporary consumer culture? How can we put this knowledge of
consumer geography to work to optimally position our efforts to change
consumer behavior?



Here are some of my favorite definitions of "the good life" from the
facebook page I talked about. To me, they look like they could be
soundbites from the greenest, most politically active simple-lifers
we've read about this semester. The reality is that fans of this
brand rate themselves as "very" politically conservative and are
likely to spend approximately 35% more on clothing than most
Americans. What's going on here?

"The Good Life"

Enjoying watching my five nephews playing in the surf, then seeing
baby turtles hatch and march to the ocean, having dinner with the
family on a Sunday afternoon.

I think of it in very simple terms. Simply being content with your lot
in life works for me and nc state football.

The good life is. Heart to hearts with my husband. Bike rides without
training wheels. The birds out my window. Fresh air. Great
grandparents. Friends that make you pee your pants with laughter. Fire
in the fireplace and a goodnight kiss from my kids.

The good life is savoring life's moments. Taking the time to create
beauty, inspiration, legacies, adventure and kindness in each
connection to our family, friends and neighbors.

The good life= having enough fulfilling work to keep you busy and
satisfied and enough spare time to enjoy and appreciate all that life
has to offer with those you love.

Being happy with who you are and the life you've been given. Knowing
that while I miss my husband, he's brave enough to fight for our
freedom and safety..then having him back in my arms at the end of a
long mission/deployment!

The Good Life: True happiness is contentment! Being thankful for the
blessings we all have in this country. No matter how much or how
little you have, realizing that we are ALL rich in the blessings God
has given us.

A GOOD LIFE is what you make of it. You owe yourself to make it as
GOOD as you can - you get just one shot - LIVE IT and OWN IT!

The Good Life isn't money, cars, or wealth. It's the peace of mind
that comes from loving what you have and living simply within those
means.

The good life comes from family and friends, not money or things.

The good life: simplicity, pure happiness and genuine self-loving.

And my personal favorite ...

The good life is screaming as a family "We're Debt Free" on the Dave
Ramsey Radio Show. When you have no debt, you have more freedom to
enjoy a good life. WE LOVE YOUR MERCHANDISE!!! (capitalization in
original)

On Apr 25, 2:21 pm, Shan <shanover...@gmail.com> wrote:

[maria grinko]

Hi from Dulles Int'l!

These readings kept reminding me of topics from the other discussions (for ex, Micheletti and Stolle discussing the effectiveness of branded political communication and the older readings on anti-Hummer people) and overall I am reminded of how efforts to mainstream sustainable consumption can be contradictory, counterproductive, etc. Willis and Schor point out some alignments in the consumer and the activist, which is encouraging. Still, Seyfang seems to conclude that we can't put too many eggs in one basket and can't get too excited about any one "alignment" in a sense.

I scanned the "Mainstream Green" report and it reminded me of a conclusion from a different reading (can't remember which one right now, but the author(s) argued that self-interest could and should be the way to mainstream green consumption) and I feel like this is where my own opinions align. The authors conclude that "sustainability is the outcome, not the communications strategy."

I'm wondering what you guys think about the self-interest track. Is this assuming too little of people? Or is this actually the only way we'll all be on board? We've talked about "aspirational" revolutions before, is this how to do it?

[John Petroff]

While I enjoyed all of the articles, I found it especially interesting
to read the report from the advertising firm. First of all, it is
encouraging to see a report from a firm we likely would have
categorized throughout the semester as a propagator of unsustainable
consumption. Secondly, it is interesting to see the conversation of
sustainable consumption in the language of such a firm. This report
was produced because some companies thought that producing sustainable
products might be profitable for the same reasons that unsustainable
products have been profitable. I am fairly certain this is the first
time we have seen anybody advocate sustainable consumption for the
sake of making money; at least none of the other instances stand out
at this point. The report almost perfectly fits into the Ecological
Modernization Theory which is both encouraging and concerning. It is
encouraging to see support for this model of sustainable consumption
because I believe it represents the easiest transition to
sustainability. Simultaneously, it is concerning because we have
pointed out some of the flaws of EM Theory and its feasibility.
The twelve ways to "close the gap" were particularly interesting.
Almost every point relates to something we have discussed this
semester including the importance of normalcy and peer groups as well
as making messages personal.

On Apr 25, 7:25 pm, Emilie Dubois <emilie.anne.dub...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[Tom Laidley]

Much of the material we read this week concentrates on the communications strategies that may be fruitful in engendering behaviors related to sustainable consumption. While I think it is a pragmatic approach, I still feel many of these arguments suffer from serious flaws that are both practical and theoretical. When I read these (and other papers), it seems like the authors are sometimes missing the point. To wit, some authors find that consumers describe a formidable barrier to greater engagement as time and cost premiums, and cultural discrepancies which prevent some from wanting to engage in certain behaviors due to the symbolism involved (like men with hybrids or canvas bags, etc.). They then argue that communications strategies can defuse these concerns; just frame consuming unsustainably as akin to smoking and make them social pariahs (hugely problematic in practice and utterly tone-deaf in its approach, but I'll resist the urge to go into a rant about how mind-numbingly smug and ineffective tactics like that would be for huge groups of people).

Now one problem is that this really doesn't address the root of the problem. Moreover, it's disingenuous and assumes people are stupid, and that marketing will assuage reticence that is not always rooted in perception, but the hard reality that lots of people like buying things, and that they aren't automatons who uncritically absorb messages from Nike, Kraft, etc. Still, the real problem for me is practical- I just don't think these strategies will really work. I'm not saying don't change the message or try and influence behavior- that's of course very necessary. I'm saying do it in an honest and open way, such that you're not treating giving up meat for lunch or the car ride to work like you would trying to sell a watch or a shirt. It goes far deeper than that, and though these people are often well-intentioned, I really don't care about those intentions are totally ineffective and kind of patronizing to boot.

[Noel Munoz]

Melucci's argument that , "identity is a key component of social action and that new lifestyle politics in expanded realms are key to understanding contemporary social movements." I think this really says a lot about how people try to create identities through what they purchase. It is evident in the Schor and Willis article that in America people who are CC's are trying to make a statement. It's not coincidental anymore, people are making conscious efforts to change how they spend their money in order to create a real change.

Reading the Hilton article and how consumerism became a government issue says a lot about how important it was for the economy. By the government actually promoting spending they led many people into a lifestyle that could not be sustained for very long period of time. Also, governments creating agencies to legitimize people's spending is also an aspect of consumerism that should be questioned. Even to this day many of the policies made by our government are not made to help citizens but are instead made to help corporations. Transparency is what is most needed, especially when people are consuming.