Here's a pretty old post from the blog archives of Geekery Today; it was written about 19 years ago, in 2004, on the World Wide Web.
Today (or tomorrow, if you’re not in the United States) is
Buy Nothing Day, a tradition (not a meme; there are no memes) from the folks at Adbusters. The idea is pretty simple: you’re not supposed to buy anything today. This is supposed to be an action against
consumerism. As it turns out, I made a completely unnecessary purchase today: a ticket to see The Incredibles for the third time, a big greasy bag of popcorn, and a big brand name Frozen Coke. Delicious, but oughtn’t I feel guilty?
No. I don’t feel guilty and I shouldn’t, because Buy Nothing Day is, in fact, a collosally misanthropic and subtly reactionary waste of time. Now, I couldn’t care less about the Adbusters crew, but there are people I respect (e.g., Elayne Riggs (2004-11-26), Mark Dilley (2004-11-19)) who support Buy Nothing Day and similar
anti-consumerist actions such as the Great Holiday Boycott. I can understand why good people think there is a good idea here:
anti-consumerist sentiments latch onto a real problem. But I dissent.
Anti-consumerist doctrine, from Marcuse to Adbusters, distorts the nature of the problem, analyses it in terms that are subtly (or sometimes not-so-subtly) misogynistic and classist, and offers solutions that systematically miss the point.
Buy Nothing Day is as nice of an example of
anti-consumerist theory and practice as you could hope for. The problem is over-consumption of corporate-made goods; its source is consumers duped into mindless binging by clever ad-men; its solution is waking up and making the choice to opt out of the madness. (Here’s Adbusters:
For 24 hours, millions of people around the world do not participate — in the doomsday economy, the marketing mind-games, and the frantic consumer-binge that’s become our culture. We pause. We make a small choice not to shop.) You make the decision to opt out, and to chide others into opting out too–by shuffling around stores in a zombie costume or harassing retail workers, for example; that is the road to enlightenment, and enlightenment means liberation. This attack on consumer culture is packaged as resistance to the bourgeoisie; thus, anti-consumerism is sold as Leftist populism.
The problem is that this is wrong on nearly every count. Stop for a moment to just look at what the theory of consumerism says about the origin of social problems–the delusions that the unwashed masses are allegedly duped into–and what it recommends as the solution–Gnostic liberation from the dirty material world. This is not Leftist critique; it is Romantic misanthropy. Look at how it is cashed out in action: ridiculing ordinary people going about their business by portraying them as mindless zombies, pigs, sheep, or cattle; harassing workers who have done nothing worse than show up for their jobs. This is not Leftist politics; it’s empty lifestylism and a display of personal purity. What it expresses is contempt and what it does is attack ordinary people–workers and women in particular. More on that in a moment. (I don’t want to suggest that everyone who recommends Buy Nothing Day or expresses anti-consumerist sentiments is some kind of slimy reactionary misanthrope. They aren’t; lots of decent and sensible people are involved. But I think those decent and sensible people are making an understandable mistake, and going along with a reactionary program without realizing it.)
Ellen Willis had it right in Women and the Myth of Consumerism (1969):
If white radicals are serious about revolution, they are going to have to discard a lot of bullshit ideology created by and for educated white middle-class males. A good example of what has to go is the popular theory of consumerism.
As expounded by many leftist thinkers, notably Marcuse, this theory maintains that consumers are psychically manipulated by the mass media to crave more and more consumer goods, and thus power an economy that depends on constantly expanding sales. …
First of all, there is nothing inherently wrong with consumption. Shopping and consuming are enjoyable human activities and the marketplace has been a center of social life for thousands of years.
The locus of the oppression resides in the production function: people have no control over which commodities are produced (or services performed), in what amounts, under what conditions, or how these commodities are distributed. Corporations make these decisions and base them solely on profit potential.
As it is, the profusion of commodities is a genuine and powerful compensation for oppression. It is a bribe, but like all bribes it offers concrete benefits–in the average American’s case, a degree of physical comfort unparalleled in history. Under present conditions, people are preoccupied with consumer goods not because they are brainwashed but because buying is the one pleasurable activity not only permitted but actively encouraged by our rulers. The pleasure of eating an ice cream cone may be minor compared to the pleasure of meaningful, autonomous work, but the former is easily available and the latter is not. A poor family would undoubtedly rather have a decent apartment than a new TV, but since they are unlikely to get the apartment, what is to be gained by not buying the TV?
That’s not all, either. Misanthropy is always easiest to take out on the people who are least powerful and most widely denigrated; it shouldn’t be surprising that
anti-consumerist misanthropy is so often cashed out in backhanded attacks on poor workers, and especially on women:
The theory is said to be particularly applicable to women, for women do most of the actual buying, their buying is often directly related to their oppression (e.g. makeup, soap flakes), and they are a special target of advertisers. According to this view, the society defines women as consumers, and the purpose of the prevailing media image of women as passive sexual objects is to sell products. It follows that the beneficiaries of this depreciation of women are not men but the corporate power structure. …
The confusion between cause and effect is particularly apparent in the consumerist analysis of women’s oppression. Women are not manipulated by the media into being domestic servants and mindless sexual decorations, the better to sell soap and hair spray. Rather, the image reflects women as they are forced by men in a sexist society to behave. Male supremacy is the oldest and most basic form of class exploitation; it was not invented by a smart ad man. …
For women, buying and wearing clothes and beauty aids is not so much consumption as work. One of a woman’s jobs in this society is to be an attractive sexual object, and clothes and make up are tools of the trade. Similarly, buying food and household furnishings is a domestic task; it is the wife’s chore to pick out the commodities that will be consumed by the whole family. Appliances and cleaning materials are tools that faciliate her domestic function. When a woman spends a lot of money and time decorating her home or herself, or hunting down the latest in vacuum cleaners, it is not idle self-indulgence (let alone the result of psychic manipulation) but a healthy attempt to find outlets for her creative energies within her circumscribed role.
… Consumerism as applied to women is blatantly sexist. The pervasive image of the empty-headed female consumer constantly trying her husband’s patience with her extravagant purchases contributes to the myth of male superiority: we are incapable of spending money rationally: all we need to make us happy is a new hat now and then. (There is an analogous racial stereotype–the black with his Cadillac and magenta shirts.) Furthermore, the consumerism line allows Movement men to avoid recognizing that they exploit women by attributing women’s oppression solely to capitalism. It fits neatly into already existing radical theory and concerns, saving the Movement the trouble of tackling the real problems of women’s liberation. And it retards the struggle against male supremacy by dividing women. Just as in the male movement, the belief in consumerism encourages radical women to patronize and put down other women for trying to survive as best they can, and maintains individualist illusions.
In the past 35 years, we unfortunately haven’t come a long way. (Watch as women and girls are glibly portrayed as empty-headed, narcissistic, and shallow; marvel as
unconsumer boys thoughtlessly objectify
liberated women to pimp their project.)
So what must we do? Hey, it’s the holidays; let’s enjoy ourselves–even, yes, buy something, if we feel like it–and ignore or ridicule guilt-tripping anti-consumerists who haven’t got anything better to do than hector us. And when we get back to work, shouldn’t we remember that we’re all in this together, and that that the answer is to empower people instead of berating them? Here’s Ellen Willis again, sounding (alas!) eerily like she was writing about Buy Nothing Day itself, instead of the movement 35 years ago:
If we are to build a mass movement we must recognize that no individual decision, like rejecting consumption, can liberate us. We must stop arguing about whose life style is better (and secretly believing ours is) and tend to the task of collectively fighting our own oppression and the ways in which we oppress others. When we create a political alternative to sexism, racism, and capitalism, the consumer problem, if it is a problem, will take care of itself.
“When we create a political alternative to sexism, racism, and capitalism, the consumer problem, if it is a problem, will take care of itself.”
Looking around, I think there is a problem that will soon be (and in many places, is) looming larger than sexism or racism: the problem of survival.
I agree with some of the points about sexism and classism, but the irony of dismissing BND wholesale as “reactionary” doesn’t need to be pointed out.
The modes of consumption that you describe are simply not sustainable, and are maintained only by unimpeded imperial access to the resources of the third world. The emissions thus created are fucking up the planet, causing hundreds of thousands of species to go extinct (and soon, humans, starting with Bangladesh). (You were drinking a Coke, ferchrissakes.)
If the oil runs out and/or the economy crashes, we had better have ways of feeding millions of people in place that don’t require global capitalism or fossil fuels, or those people won’t have a chance to worry about sexism or classism.
This seems painfully obvious. Kudos for being contrarian and pointing out the problems with liberal projects like BND, but it’s hard to see how consuming will help anything.
Scott Neigh /#
Thanks for the thought provoking post. I have to admit, I have celebrated BND with street theatre-type actions before, though not in a number of years. The first critique I read of it (and this may be floating around the internet still, I’m not sure) was an essay advocating that we celebrate Steal Something Day instead by some anarchists up in Montreal — they captured the class-related problems, though if I remember correctly there wasn’t a gender component to that analysis.
Anyway, I agree that the consumerism/anti-consumerism paradigm has problems, and treating it as the problem/the answer leads to limited and even oppressive goals and activities. However, I think perhaps your post throws the baby out with the bath water, as it were. I’m only tentatively adopting this position as I need to think about it more, but I do think there is still value in problematizing unsustainable consumption. Obviously there are environmental implications, as the previous comment describes. I think there are also solid radical reasons for leaders within poor communities to problematize it — encouraging collective resistance and solidarity not by demonizing consumption and consumers, as some BND-related activity does, but by honestly pointing out that it is never really going to fill the void created by alienation while in the process of creating alternatives. And I think it is perhaps even more important to problematize it amongst the middle-class because sooner or later we are going to have give up that level and kind of attachment to consumption — giving it up won’t create the change, as the Adbusters folks claim, but an openness to giving it up might make the middle-class insistence on a repressive response to the movements that ultimately demand such change (workers, women, national liberation in the global south, and others) a bit less unified and strident.
The problem, I think, is not problematizing excess consumption per se but doing it (a) in a way that is not conscious of the broader context of power and privilege and exploitative relations of production, and (b) in a way that uncritically reproduces the puritanism that pervades so much of North American culture (including many other facets of activist culture, unfortunately).
Hmm, I dunno. I think “Buy Nothing Day” is just a good catalyst for discussion and reflection over true values. Culture jamming, in other words – what Adbusters does best. If it were intended as a serious boycott, then I would have second thoughts…
Sergio Méndez /#
This time I have to disagree with you. You may have a point that some exposers and expositions of the anti-consumer theory, recur to misogynistic and beating-the-poor tactics. But that does not mean the theory depends on such aberrations at all.
As Dru pointed before me, the problem with consumerism is indeed an environmental problem. We cannot keep our levels of consumption without risking to destroy the planet, and the species that live on it -including us-. I also agree with Marcusse and most of the Frankfurt school: consumerism is indeed a method to keep the people controlled. Selling people all kind of shit they don’t need while the system, at the same time, keeps them without the chance to have the basics to survive (your example of the poor family and the dilemma between the TV and the house, is exactly of what I am talking about) is certainly a way to keep people under control. Add to that the alienation of the people and the reduction of their personhood to the status of “consumer”.
This is not something that affects only one class or gender. It affects all of us, specially the rich and the middle upper classes, that have more money to consume. I know this firsthand, since I am a member of bourgeois accommodated family in a country where people are starving and homeless. The first person to be blamed for this is me. And the first class I will blame to be mindless zombies in shopping malls, are those who belong to my class. Mea Culpa.
Nancy Jowske /#
my comments are here…
I don’t take the “buy nothing day” seriously – just regard it as a reminder to spend time enjoying the company of family or friends rather than rush out and buy something unnecessary. Americans are highly pressured with this holiday nonsense – average Christmas spending estimated at 700.00 per family – and I think it would be better for our sanity if we spent more time writing letters/making phone calls, visiting, baking cookies, decorating the yard shrubbery with edible Christmas decorations (threaded strings fo cranberries and popcorn, for the birds), and included a charity (“neediest families” or other) in our gift-giving plan.
I’m into the whole simple living philosophy, mainly because I hate keeping track of stuff. And while I can get with not buying a ridiculous amount of crap (some stuff out there is just plain extraneous), a lot of anti-consumerism groups go after the powerless and rely on simplistic thinking. Their tactics aren’t changing anything–in fact, Adbusters jumped the freaking shark when they put out their sneaker for sale. Yeah, folks, that’s how we combat consumerism–with more consumerism!
I tend to agree with the baby/bathwater analysis. Your view seems similar to me to the view that gets thrown around by old time Marxists, by the way, when one tries to talk of racism or sexism–well, they say, if we just solve this capitalist/communist problem, sexism and racism will go away.
Discussed at aptenobytes.typepad.com /#
Discussed at www.lyingmediabastards.com /#
Lying Media Bastards:
Discussed at randomwalks.com /#
Dru Blood - I believe in the inherent goodness of all beings:
thanks for this post – found it via dru blood. i agree with some points and disagree with others. for a while now i’ve been annoyed with wholesale rejection of markets and useless stereotyping of consumers, but many lefties will excommunicate people for hinting at such thoughts.
reading this made me think of this:
Not endorsing it, just posting it.