Are you A Slave To Consumerism?

“Am I a slave to consumerism?”

“Hell no! I am in perfect control of my actions, and am not enslaved by any external factors, let alone consumerism.”

That was Joe’s answer, and Jane agreed. However, both Joe and Jane empirically observed that the world around them mostly consisted of people who were indeed slaves to consumerism. Were they somehow special enough not to belong to the majority? That would be a cool position to be in. However, to get to the answer, let’s have a look at their childhood, and see how they grew up.

This essay is supported by Generatebg

The History of Joe And Jane

Joe and Jane have been lifelong friends.Both of them were born into middle-class families and went to the same school. When Joe was still a baby, his mom liked to adorn him with cool blue outfits, whereas Jane’s dad loved see his baby in pink dresses. As young children, Joe was into Star Wars and Power Rangers, whereas Jane was into Disney Princesses and unicorns. As they grew up into young teens, Joe developed an interest in action videogames, Nike shoes, and Axe deodorants, whereas Jane developed an interest in board games, high heels, and Gucci perfumes.

As they matured into young adults, Joe took up an entry level corporate job, whereas Jane started as a secretary for the CEO of a corporate firm. Even though Joe wasn’t earning a lot, he wanted to maintain a decent corporate status, and got himself a BMW on credit to drive to and back from work. He now wore Koio shoes, and Hugo Boss perfume. Jane adorned herself with very fashionable professional dresses from Drior, trendy stilettos, and Chanel Parfüm. She also took an interest in Victoria’s Secret undergarments.

The First Moment of Truth

Notice what is going on here? Joe and Jane are indeed not the exception to the norm. It becomes apparent that they are indeed slaves to consumerism. As their ‘status’ increases, so does their consumption. Joe and Jane are just fictional characters (any resemblance to reality is purely coincidental) that are meant to illustrate a deeper fact lurking beneath: We are all slaves to consumerism to a certain extent.

You Are Not Entirely At Fault

Merriam Webster defines consumerism as “the theory that an increasing consumption of goods is economically desirable.” If we take this definition at face value, we begin to see that there could bigger forces at play here. Who decided that Joe wore blue, and Jane wore pink in the first place? Was it an original decision from their parents, or was it programmed into their minds?

The Second Moment of Truth

There is a certain element of cultural stereotyping going on here, and it appears that brands have economic incentives to program certain stereotypes into typical populations. The stereotypes themselves may differ from society to society, but the pattern of stereotyping and the economic incentives remain common. Furthermore, it is unfair to blame it squarely on the brands. The truth is a bit more complicated than that. The brands are not evil masterminds that program the society. The society programs the brands, and the brands program the society. It goes both ways. Confusing, right? But unfortunately, social phenomena are seldom simple, and we as human beings try and simplify them with our biases, and end up with poorly drawn conclusions. If this is indeed the case, how did we end up here in the first place?

The Origin of Truth

What’s going on here is more of a systemic phenomenon. Originally, when man started civilization, agriculture took the forefront front. Agricultural systems needed innovations as means to providing for markets. In this era, consumerism was a means to an end of a worthwhile life. Later on, the industrial revolution came along, and hyper-accelerated innovation. There was so much to be gained out of innovation that people were incentivized to specialize their skills into standardised Lego blocks (metaphor) that could be put together by a typical organization to drive the innovation train further. At this point, consumerism turned into an end, instead of being the means to an end. To be more precise: during the agricultural era, consumerism was a means to achieve a worthwhile life, whereas during the industrial era, the definition changed to consumerism = worthwhile life.

Let’s say that I specialize as a plumber. I am an expert in my field, but to solve any other problem in my life, I need assistance. That by definition makes me a consumer. So by choosing to specialize, I drive the consumer market. On the other hand, organisations that have stuff to sell face competition, and engage in aggressive advertising that leverages psychological human behavior to be profitable. In other words, they try to be profitable at any (legal) cost, even if it means to program stereotypes into societies. In the absence of such organisations, it is not that stereotypes wouldn’t exist, they would simply be different stereotypes (must be fun living in human societies).

Conclusion

“Know thyself.” It is worth assuming that we are all slaves to consumerism at some level. Awareness to this possibility is to a large extent already a step towards better life choices. Asking the following set of questions (as an example) might help: “Do I really need this? Or am I urged to get this because my father / brother / husband / wife thinks that I should get this? If so, why do they feel that I need to own this? If I choose to own this, how much does it make me dependent on a factor that I am no longer in control of in my life?” These sorts of questions help us in understanding the underlying thought processes, and try to achieve an objective view of the cause-and-effect of consumption decisions. With all that being said, being a slave to consumerism is not necessarily a bad thing. Choosing the wrong masters to be a slave for is a bad thing.

I hope you found this article interesting and useful. If you’d like to get notified when interesting content gets published here, consider subscribing.