Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Keywords
consumer behavior
consumer choice
consumer culture
evolutionary psychology
industrial ecology
symbolic interactionism
Summary
Industrial ecology has mainly been concerned with improving
the efficiency of production systems. But addressing consumption is also vital in reducing the impact of society on its environment. The concept of sustainable consumption is a response to
this. But the debates about sustainable consumption can only
really be understood in the context of much wider and deeper
debates about consumption and about consumer behavior itself. This article explores some of these wider debates. In particular, it draws attention to a fundamental disagreement that
runs through the literature on consumption and haunts the
debate on sustainable consumption: the question of whether,
or to what extent, consumption can be taken as good for
us. Some approaches assume that increasing consumption is
more or less synonymous with improved well-being: the more
we consume the better off we are. Others argue, just as vehemently, that the scale of consumption in modern society is
both environmentally and psychologically damaging, and that
we could reduce consumption significantly without threatening the quality of our lives. This second viewpoint suggests that
a kind of double dividend is inherent in sustainable consumption: the ability to live better by consuming less and reduce our
impact on the environment in the process. In the final analysis,
this article argues, such win-win solutions may exist but will
require a concerted societal effort to realize.
http://mitpress.mit.edu/jie
19
S TAT E O F T H E D E B AT E
S TAT E O F T H E D E B AT E
Consumption as Well-Being
The starting point for this exploration is an
elaboration of the view that, in some simple
sense, the consumption of goods and services is
an attempt to provide for our individual and (at
the aggregate level) collective well-being. This
view of consumption is, at its simplest, the one
encoded in conventional economics. All transactions in the market are assumed to represent the
rational choices of informed consumers. In this
rational choice model, the consumer is visualized as a rational actor, attempting to maximize
well-being or utility within the constraints of
the market, according to his or her own individual preferences (Russell and Wilkinson 1979,
e.g.). This utilitarian model has become so widely
accepted that most modern economics textbooks
barely even discuss its origins or question its authenticity. Mas-Colell and colleagues (1995), for
example, assert that it is logical to take the assumption of preference maximization as a primitive concept for the theory of consumer choice.
Begg and colleagues (2003) simply assume that
the consumer chooses the affordable bundle [of
goods] that maximizes his or her utility.
Economics itself tends to be silent, however,
on the nature or origins of individual preferences.
Jackson, Live Better by Consuming Less?
21
S TAT E O F T H E D E B AT E
S TAT E O F T H E D E B AT E
ciety characterized by unlimited materialist values; in the nineteenth century, Marx (and many
others) decried the fetishism of commodities
that characterized capitalism. On the cusp of
the twentieth century, Thorsten Veblen ([1899]
1998) articulated a tendency toward conspicuous consumption. In The Theory of the Leisure
Class, he contrasted the destructive traits of the
pecuniary culture with the industrial virtues
of earlier times. In the space of less than a century
pecuniary culture had established an iron grip on
modern social mores. But it had also generated
a host of critics, all of whom were skepticalin
slightly different waysof the power of increased
consumption to deliver ever higher levels of satisfaction.
Murray Bookchin (writing in the 1960s under the pseudonym Lewis Herber) argued that
human society had reached a level of anonymity,
social atomisation and spiritual isolation. . .
virtually unprecedented in human history
(Herber 1963, 187). Fromm (1976) was alarmed
at the alienation and passivity that pervaded
modern life, and placed the blame squarely on an
economic system predicated on increasing levels of consumption. Ivan Illich (1977) attacked
the ideology that equates progress with affluence
and needs with commodities. In attempting to
discover why unprecedented and fast-moving
prosperity had left its beneficiaries unsatisfied,
Scitovsky (1976) highlighted the addictive nature of consumer behavior and its failure to mirror the complexity of human motivation and
experience.
These critics have to some extent been supported by empirical evidence. In The Joyless Economy, Scitovsky could already cite the failure
of reported levels of well-being to match the
growth in GDP (Scitovsky 1976). In 1991, Erik
Jacobs and Robert Worcester found that people
were marginally less happy than they had been
in 1981 in spite of increased personal income
(Worcester 1998). A similar result was reported
over a longer period by Myers and Diener (1996).
Oswald (1997) found that reported levels of satisfaction with life were only marginally higher
than they had been in the mid-seventies. In some
countries, including Britain, they were actually
lower. The most recent evidence suggests a weak
positive correlation between increasing GDP and
Jackson, Live Better by Consuming Less?
23
S TAT E O F T H E D E B AT E
S TAT E O F T H E D E B AT E
satisfiers may be more or less successful in meeting the underlying needs. Some kinds of satisfiers
may even violate the underlying needs that they
are attempting to meet: as an example, Max Neef
cites the arms race as a violator of the need for
protection.
Perhaps the most interesting question raised
by this framework concerns the relationship
between economic goodsconsumption activities (in the conventional model)and needssatisfaction. It is fairly clear that this relationship
is highly complex and often nonlinear. More consumption of any particular good does not always
mean more needs-satisfaction. In fact, if the social critiques of consumption are to be believed, it
is clear that some at least of the spectrum of economic consumption fails to achieve any needssatisfaction at all, and may even be violating certain needs (Max Neef 1991; Jackson and Marks
1999; Kasser 2002).
Of course, it is clear that not all economic
consumption has this character. Even within the
Max Neef framework, certain kinds of needs (subsistence and protection, for example) exist that
demand the provision of certain material goods
(foodstuffs and housing, for example). Managing
the environmental impacts associated with the
satisfaction of these material needs remains a
significant challenge. At the same time, it is clear
that many of the other needs (affection, participation, understanding, idleness, and identity, for
example) are nonmaterial in the sense that satisfaction of these needs implies no minimum level
of material throughput. Clearly, different cultural
satisfiers will have different material implications.
For example, attempts in Western culture to satisfy these nonmaterial needs increasingly involve
material consumption (Jackson and Marks 1999).
If the arguments cited earlier in this section are to
be believed, however, attempts to satisfy nonmaterial needs through material consumption will
meet with only limited success, if any at all.
Two conclusions follow from this critique
one of them is stark, the other more hopeful.
The stark conclusion is that modern society appears to be seriously adrift in its pursuit of human
well-being (Illich 1977; Baumann 1998; Kasser
2002). In pursuit of an inappropriate concept of
progress, we are not only damaging our environment but also degrading our own psychological
and social well-being. That environmental damage should turn out to be the environmental price
we have to pay for achieving human well-being
would be unfortunate. That environmental damage is an external cost of a misguided and unsuccessful attempt to achieve human well-being is
tragic. Consumer society, in this view, appears to
be in the grip of a kind of social pathology.
The hopeful conclusion rests in the scope for
improvement that this perspective offers. Environmental imperativesthe demand to reduce
the material impact of human activitiesare often portrayed and often perceived as constraining human welfare and threatening our quality
of life. In contrast, the eco-humanistic critique
suggests that existing patterns of consumption already threaten our quality of life, not just because
of their impact on the environment, but also because of their failure to satisfy our needs. Reducing the material profligacy of our lives, according
to this view, will help the environment. It also offers the possibility of improving the quality of our
lives. Revisioning the way we satisfy our nonmaterial needs is not the bitter pill of eco-fascism,
argue Jackson and Marks (1999, p. 439). It is the
most obvious avenue for renewing human development.
The humanistic needs-based critique of modern development has informed a range of recent,
contemporary social movements aimed at voluntary simplicity (Elgin 1993), downshifting
(Schor 1998), and ethical consumption (Shaw
and Newholm 2003). What these movements
(and the needs-theoretic critique that underlies
them) offer is the tantalizing promise that we
could live better by consuming less; that reduced
material consumption could improve the quality
of our lives, particularly where the satisfaction
of nonmaterial needs is concerned. Sustainable
consumption, in this perspective, appears to offer a very particular kind of double dividend: the
ability to live better by consuming less, and by
the same token, to reduce our impact on the environment.
Consumer Behavior as an
Evolutionary Adaptation
But this conclusion raises an immediate and
glaring question. Why, if consumption signally
Jackson, Live Better by Consuming Less?
25
S TAT E O F T H E D E B AT E
26
S TAT E O F T H E D E B AT E
Among the behaviors suggested by the evolutionary psychology of consumerism are those
concerned with display and status (Howarth
1996). We have already drawn attention to
some of these behaviors. Veblen highlighted the
invidious nature of social comparison and was
derogatory of the culture that encourages it. Preferring to condemn than to condone, Veblen offered little in the way of understanding of the
underlying motivations for consumer behavior.
Evolutionary psychology, on the other hand,
clearly has something to offer here. Specifically,
the arguments from sexual selection suggest that
at least some conspicuous consumer behaviors
occupy the role of sexual display. That is, they
advertise availability, fertility, potency, fidelity,
and a variety of other characteristics desirable to
the opposite sex.
Display consumption is not limited to sexual
display, however. Other kinds of display speak
less directly to sexual availability, but represent a
means of establishing social position within status hierarchies. The notion of a status hierarchy
is an important one in evolutionary psychology.
It is derived from earlier work by the Norwegian
biologist Schjelderup-Ebbe on the now-familiar
concept of a pecking order. According to evolutionary psychology, status hierarchies play a
rather complex but extremely important role in
the social organization that controls both rights
and access to resources. High positions in the
hierarchyaccording to the theorycorrespond
to improved access, not only to financial or physical resources, but also to sexual resources (potential mates), to social resources (friends, family, community), and to informationvital in its
turn to protect the long-term social interests of
the individual and his or her progeny. This latter view is reinforced, as we shall see below, by
research from social anthropology.
The more general notion that certain kinds of
consumption are used to advertise status, power,
and social position has been explored extensively
in the sociological discourse on consumption.
Following Veblens work, the French sociologist
Pierre Bourdieu (1984) has suggested that patterns of consumer behavior provide the mechanism for defining and maintaining class distinctions in modern society. A more general variation
27
S TAT E O F T H E D E B AT E
achieving this double dividend will require sophisticated understandings of and interventions
in human behavior.
S TAT E O F T H E D E B AT E
of course, many everyday household consumption decisions are shaped by a single and very
significant consumption decision with clear display and status connotations: namely, our choice
of dwelling. A larger house in a better neighborhood may offer social and personal advantages to
its owner or tenant. It also entails larger mortgage
(or rent) payments, higher utility bills, higher local authority (council) taxes, heavier insurance
premiums, and a greater demand for furniture and
fittings. Having made the critical consumption
choice of house purchase (or rental), we may then
find ourselves locked into a variety of other consumption decisions that have little or nothing to
do directly with status. Nonetheless, the status
component in such decisions is difficult to deny.
It is clear, however, that critical consumption
decisionssuch as house or vehicle purchase
are only one of many components that influence
everyday consumer choice. A key lesson from
the literature on ordinary consumption is that
these day-to-day choices are constrained within a
rather complex decision architecture, which includes historical, social, institutional, and even
political components.
To take one simple and rather familiar example, the fuel consumption associated with heating
our homes is determined (among other things)
by the available fuel supply, the efficiency of the
conversion devices, the effectiveness of thermal
insulation in the dwelling, and the level of thermal comfort programmed into our thermostats.
These factors in their turn are constrained by
the historical development of the fuel supply and
appliance industries, the institutional design of
the energy service market, the social norms associated with personal convenience and thermal
comfort, and our own personal responses to those
norms. The process of socialization of these norms
is itself a complex one, often involving incremental changes over long historical periods (Shove
2003). Typically, at the point of everyday decision, the ordinary consumer will have little or no
control over most of this decision architecture.
The message that flows from this analysis,
therefore, is that consumers are a long way from
being willing actors in the consumption process,
capable of exercising either rational or irrational
choice in the satisfaction of their own needs and
desires. More often they find themselves locked
into unsustainable patterns of consumption, either by social norms that lie beyond individual
control, or else by the constraints of the institutional context within which individual choice is
executed.
Emphasizing that these circumstances are often deliberately created by producer and business interests (Sanne 2002, p. 286), proponents
of this view have something in common with
the critical social theory of Bourdieu and others.
They also offer some support for the idea that
consumer society is suffering from some kind of
social pathology. But the later writers locate the
pathology in a different place than do the earlier
social critics. Specifically, they claim, this pathology does not reside within the remit or control of
the individual consumer. Nor is it some disembodied feature of consumer culture. Rather it is
to be located quite specifically within the institutional architecture of everyday choice (Wilhite
et al. 1996; Ger et al. 1998). Once again, the message of this strand of the literature is to emphasize
that wishful thinking about behavioral change
will not deliver sustainability. If there are winwin solutions to the problem of overconsumption, they will require intervention and change
at the societal level, rather than simplistic appeals
to the good nature of individuals to realize them.
29
S TAT E O F T H E D E B AT E
S TAT E O F T H E D E B AT E
negotiated and renegotiated through social interactions within a specific cultural context. For
a symbol to serve its purpose of conveying social
meaning, as Hirschman (1980) explains, there
must be at least two partiesthe symbol possessor
(perhaps a consumer desiring to express his/her
identity to others via a display of symbols) and
the symbol observer (perhaps another individual
to whom the consumer wishes to communicate
his/her identity).
In the hands of Baudrillard (1970) and more
recently Baumann (1998), this insight has become the basis for a view of consumer society
in which the individual consumer is locked into
a continual process of constructing and reconstructing personal identity in the context of a
continually renegotiated universe of social and
cultural symbols. The principal object of consumption in the consumer society is not, according to Baudrillard, material goods or even
economic value, but signs, symbolic value. As
Baumann (1998) argues, there are convenient
resonances between this process of perpetual reconstruction of identity and the impermanent
transient properties of modern consumer goods.
Aggregate identities, he argues, loosely arranged of the purchasable, not-too-lasting, easily
detachable and utterly replaceable tokens currently available in the shops, seem to be exactly
what one needs to meet the challenges of contemporary living (Baumann 1998, p. 29). A very
similar thesis is advanced in Lewis and Bridgers
(2001) book The Soul of the New Consumer.
In a sense this model of the perpetual reconstruction of identity through material goods appears to reinforce the idea explored in an earlier
section that consumer society is in the grip of
some kind of social pathology. But as some of the
proponents of this kind of symbolic interactionism are keen to point out, this is not a pathology
located within the individual consumer. Douglas
and Isherwood ([1979] 1996) set out a view of
consumer society that is based firmly on anthropological studies of primitive societies. In this
view, it is entirely rational for consumers to
employ material artifacts in a wide range of social
contexts to provide symbolic functions. In particular, they draw attention to the importance of
material goods in providing marking services
social rituals that serve to embed the consumer
31
S TAT E O F T H E D E B AT E
not only with each other but also with our pasts,
with our ideals, with our fears, and with our aspirations. We consume in pursuit of meaning.
Clearly, this view of consumption as a
vital form of social communication suggests
that simplistic appeals to consumers to forego
consumption opportunities just will not wash.
Indeed proponents of this view dismiss the ecohumanistic idea of living better by consuming
less as nave, absurd and moralistic (Jackson
et al. 2004). In short, the symbolic interactionist
perspective on consumption appears once again
to support the argument that consumption
goodseven at very high levels of throughput
are essential elements in the pursuit of human
well-being. It takes us, in one sense, right back
to the place from which we started.
Discussion
It should be obvious from the preceding discussion that the various discourses on consumption are shot through with a kind of dialectical
tension. The eco-humanist view of consumption
as a social pathology arises as a dialectical response to the conventional economic insatiability of wants. In place of insatiability, the ecohumanists place sufficiency in the satisfaction of
needs, and they emphasize the social and psychological dangers of materialism. The consumptionas-evolution avenue warns against any simplistic
adoption of this perspective by emphasizing the
evolved nature of consumer behaviors, whereas
the consumption-as-meaning school attacks the
eco-humanist approach for failing to account for
the symbolic nature of material goods. It emphasizes the vital social and cultural roles that consumer artifacts are called upon to play.
A part of this dialectical tension clearly revolves around the concept of human needs and
the role that these might play in developing alternative views of human development. Economics
plays down needs; humanistic psychology places
them at the center of its ideas about human motivation and behavior; and it is interesting to
note that symbolic interactionism is as scathing
about needs as economics is (Jackson et al. 2004).
Baudrillard (1968, p. 24) for example, insists that
the desire to moderate consumption or to establish a normalizing network of needs, is nave and
32
S TAT E O F T H E D E B AT E
very real possibility that we could collectively devise a society in which it is possible to live better
(or at least as well as we have done) by consuming
less, and become more human in the process.
Acknowledgments
I am grateful for financial support from the
U.K. Economic and Social Research Councils
Sustainable Technologies Programme (RES-3
32-27-001) during the course of this work, and for
valuable insights on some of the ideas in this article from numerous friends and colleagues including Blake Alcott, Russell Belk, Colin Campbell,
Nic Donovan, Paul Ekins, Birgitta Gatersleben,
David Halpern, Tom Hargreaves, Nic Marks,
Laurie Michaelis, Wendy Olsen, Sally Randle,
Dale Southerton, Ruth Thomas-Pellicer, David
Uzzell, Prashant Vaze, and Alan Warde. An earlier version of this article was presented at the
Third Environmental Psychology U.K. conference in Aberdeen in July 2003.
References
Allen, W. 1982. Midnight Economist: Broadcast essays
III. Los Angeles: International Institute for Economic Research.
Anderton, A. 2000. Economics. Third edition. Ormskirk, UK: Causeway Press.
Anurit, J., K. Newman, and B. Chansarker 1999. Consumer behaviour of luxury automobiles: A comparative study between Thai and UK customers.
Discussion paper, Middlesex University Business
School, London.
Axelrod, R. 1984. The evolution of cooperation. New
York: Basic Books.
Bagozzi, R., Z. Gurnao-Canli, and J. Priester 2002. The
social psychology of consumer behaviour. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
Barthes, R. 1973. Mythologies. London: Paladin.
Baudrillard, J. 1968. The system of objects, extracted
in Selected writings [1988]. Cambridge, UK: Polity
Press.
Baudrillard, J. 1970. The consumer societyMyths and
structures. Reprinted 1998. London: Sage Publications.
Baumann, Z. 1998. Work, consumerism and the new poor.
Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
Becker, G. 1976. The economic approach to human behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
33
S TAT E O F T H E D E B AT E
34
S TAT E O F T H E D E B AT E
Jackson, T. and L. Michaelis. 2003. Policies for sustainable consumption. London: Sustainable Development Commission.
Jackson, T., W. Jager, and S. Stagl. 2004. Beyond
insatiabilityNeeds theory and sustainable consumption. In ConsumptionPerspectives from ecological economics, edited by L. Reisch and I. Rpke.
Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Jacobs, M. and I. Rpke. 1999. Special issue on consumption. Ecological Economics 28(3).
James, W. 1890. The principles of psychology. New York:
Henry Holt.
Kasser, T. 2002. The high price of materialism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lancaster, K. 1966. A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy 7(3):
132157.
Lederer, K. 1980. Human needsA contribution to the
current debate. Cambridge, MA: Oelgeschlager,
Gunn and Hain.
Lewis, D. and D. Bridger. 2001. The soul of the new
consumer: AuthenticityWhat we buy and why we
buy it. London: Nicholas Brealey.
Mas-Colell, A., M. Whinston, and J. Green. 1995. Microeconomic theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Maslow, A. 1954. Motivation and personality. New York:
Harper & Row.
Max Neef, M. 1991. Human-scale development
Conception, application and further reflection. London: Apex Press.
McCracken, G. 1990. Culture and consumption. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
McDougall, W. 1923. An introduction to social psychology, 1908. Eighteenth edition. London:
Methuen.
Michaelis, L. 2000. Sustainable consumptionA research agenda. Oxford, UK: Commission on Sustainable Consumption.
Miller, D. 1995. Acknowledging consumption. London:
Routledge.
Miller, G. 2000. The mating mindHow sexual choice
shaped the evolution of human nature. London:
William Heinemann.
Morris, C. 1946. Signs, language and behaviour. New
York: George Braziller.
Myers, D. and E. Diener. 1996. The pursuit of happiness. Scientific American 27(5): 7073.
Norgaard, R. 1994. Development betrayedThe end of
progress and a coevolutionary revisioning of the future.
London: Routledge.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development) 1998. Towards sustainable consumption patterns: A progress report on member
country initiatives. Paris: OECD.
Oswald, A. 1997. Happiness and economic performance. Economic Journal 107(445): 1,815
1,831.
Philippidis, G. and L. Hubbard. 2003. Modelling hierarchical consumer preferences: An application
to global food markets. Applied Economics 35(15):
1,6791,687.
Princen, T., M. Maniates, and K. Conca. 2002. Confronting consumption. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rayner, S. and E. Malone, eds. 1998. Human choice and
climate change, Vol. 1. Washington, DC: Battelle
Press.
Reisch, L. and I. Rpke, eds. 2004. Consumption
Perspectives from ecological economics. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Ridley, M. 1994. The Red QueenSex and the evolution of human nature. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books.
Ropke, I. 1999. The dynamics of willingness to consume. Ecological Economics 28(3): 399420.
Rosenblatt, R., ed. 1999. Consuming desires: Consumption, culture and the pursuit of happiness. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Russell, R. and M. Wilkinson. 1979. Microeconomics:
A synthesis of modern and neoclassical theory. New
York: John Wiley.
Ryan, M. and A. Bate. 2001. Testing the assumptions
of rationality, continuity and symmetry when applying discrete choice experiments in health care.
Applied Economics Letters 8(1): 5963.
Sahlins, M. 1976. Culture and practical reason. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Samuelson, P. 1938. A note on the pure theory
of consumers behaviour. Economica 5(17): 61
71.
Sanne, C. 2002. Willing consumersOr locked in?
Policies for a sustainable consumption. Ecological
Economics 42(12): 273287.
Schor, J. 1998. The overspent AmericanUpscaling,
downshifting and the new consumer. New York: Basic Books.
Schumacher, E. 1973. Small is beautiful. London:
Abacus.
Scitovsky, T. 1976. The joyless economy. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Shaw, D. and T. Newholm. 2003. Consumption simplicity among ethical consumers. In Advances in
Psychology Research volume 20, edited by S. P.
Shohov. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
Shove, E. 2003. Comfort, cleanliness and convenience:
The social organisation of normality. Oxford, UK:
Berg.
Shove, E. and A. Warde. 1997. Noticing inconspicuous consumption. Paper presented to the
35
S TAT E O F T H E D E B AT E
36