“Consumerism”
is set of very modern philosophical beliefs. It can be summarized in
two sentences: “Happiness comes from consuming more and better
things. What you consume defines you.” The implications of these,
though, are wide-reaching.
First off,
consumerism makes a radical ontological argument. If what one
consumes defines one, then one is what one consumes. Right there,
consumerism dismisses bundle theory (David Hume), soul theory
(Socrates), and bodily continuity. This is a theory of identity tied
entirely to the concept of physical possessions.
I'll admit, that's
a bit of a jump in logic. Let me explain where I went from “what
one consumes defines one” to “one is what one consumes.”
In a consumer
market, there is always the quest to find and fill a niche. There are
always new and different products available with wide degrees of
uniqueness and/or customization. By this I mean, there are products
which, increasingly, can define any aspect of a person on a finer and
finer scale. So it's easier to define one's entire personality with
what one consumes.
We have to pull in
“happiness comes from consuming more and better things” here in
order to go any further. If one consumes more and better things, one
more accurately and thoroughly defines oneself. And so one is
happier. Better-defined and happier seem to go hand in hand here.
Naturally, the best
existence – the happiest life – is also totally defined. The
things consumed in this happiest life have ceased to be a Platonic
image of the real thing (the person living the life). Actually, the
consumed goods may come to better define the natures of such people
than the people themselves. At this point, I feel confident in saying
that Consumerists aspire to “one is what one consumes.” The self
is totally defined by consumed goods.
This ontological
conjecture is wildly different than any other I'm aware of. As I said
earlier, what people consume can describe literally anything about
them, according to Consumerist philosophy.
For instance, let
us break down my last purchase at the supermarket. I bought a bag of
day-old rolls, four cans of pineapple in juice, a bag of cereal, and
a pint of bourbon whiskey. The rolls and pineapple were both
store-brand, and the cereal was a low-cost bulk brand. Clearly, I
have a relatively low income. More specifically, though, the cereal
was relatively unsweetened, whole-grain, and high in fiber. And the
rolls, though from the discount rack, were whole wheat. This
indicates that, despite my income, I am conscious of my health, and I
eat food that will help me stay healthier and fitter. My decision to
buy pineapple in juice rather than syrup reinforces this. Also, I
purchased quite a lot of pineapple, so it's clearly a fruit I very
much like and something I plan to eat in quantity. However, the
bourbon I purchased was a higher-end brand. This indicates that I
tend to consider hedonism a worthwhile investment. The small volume
of the bourbon I've bought reinforces my financial state, yes, but it
also indicates that I intend to thoroughly indulge in this little
luxury.
You can tell a few
things about me from this list. First, you can tell that I am quite
poor, have a hedonistic streak, and am somewhat concerned about my
health. It's not surprising that I'm a college student. This is a
good example of how, to a consumerist, reading what is most important
to any given person is as easy a reading a bank statement. Certainly
what I or anyone spends money on says something about them, but it
isn't them, not as much as Consumerism says it is. The map is not the
territory.
So I think this
covers the ontological side of High-Culture Consumerism. Let's look
at the ethical side. How should a consumerist live their life?
At this point, I'd
like to drag the first part of my initial definition back. “Happiness
comes from consuming more and better things,” specifically. We've
established that Consumerism dictates that better-defined means
happier. But does this mean that consuming better things makes a
person better?
Yes. Yes it does.
If things define a
person, then mediocre things define a person as mediocre. Cheap
things define a person as undesirable – either their tastes are
something to be scorned, or they haven't done enough to improve their
stations. Consumerism espouses and enforces class elitism in a very
serious way.
This is
high-culture symbolism at work. Expensive things like lobster,
caviar, steak, and wine are all “good,” and store-brand or
unbranded things are “bad.” What you can't consume defines you as
much as what you do consume.
So, ethically
speaking, the way to live best is to consume more and better things,
and to make that life's goal. Ontologically speaking, one is what one
consumes. This philosophical conceit doesn't really address
metaphysics or epistemology in any meaningful way. It's the default
philosophical setting for a capitalist society, at least in some measure.
No comments:
Post a Comment