Consumption, Markets and Culture,

Vol. 10, No. 2, June 2007, pp. 117–131

Freedom and Consumption:

Toward Conceptualizing Systemic
Constraints for Subaltern Consumers in
a Capitalist Society
Rohit Varman & Ram Manohar Vikas
20RohitVarman
10
rohit@iimcal.ac.in
00000June
Consumption,
10.1080/10253860701256174
GCMC_A_225529.sgm
1025-3866
Original
Taylor
2007 and
& 2007
Article
Francis
(print)/1477-223X
Francis
Markets
Ltd and Culture
(online)

Extant postmodern theorization celebrates a close relationship between freedom and

consumption. Some theorists have argued that in this period of late capitalism, consump-
tion has become an independent sphere and compensates for freedom lost in the domain
of production. Challenging this interpretation and demonstrating a close association
between the spheres of production and consumption for subaltern consumers, we
illustrate that consumer freedom continues to be an elitist privilege. Furthermore, with
the concepts of negative and positive freedom we draw attention towards the systemic
dimensions of capitalism in order to understand the state of unfreedom for subaltern
consumers.

Keywords: Freedom; Subaltern Consumers; Consumer Culture; Political Economy

You waste the attention of your eyes,

The glittering labour of your hands,
And knead the dough enough for dozens of loaves
Of which you taste not a morsel; you are free to slave for others—
you are free to make rich richer. (from A Sad State of Freedom by Nazim Hikmet)

Freedom is one of the most celebrated of the human values and several scholars have
considered freedom as central to human existence (e.g. Berlin 1969; Sen 2000).

Rohit Varman is affiliated with the Indian Institute of Management, Calcutta. Ram Manohar Vikas is affiliated
with the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur. Correspondence to: Rohit Varman, Department of Marketing,
Indian Institute of Management, Calcutta, Kolkata, W.B., India 700 104. Tel.: +91-33-24678300/06; Email:
rohit@iimcal.ac.in. Ram Manohar Vikas, Department of Industrial and Management Engineering, Indian Insti-
tute of Technology, Kanpur, UP, India 208016; Email: rmvikas@iitk.ac.in

ISSN 1025–3866 (print)/ISSN 1477–223X (online) © 2007 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/10253860701256174
118 R. Varman & R. M. Vikas
Consumption is another significant aspect of contemporary existence and it has been
argued that consumption plays an important role in defining individuals (Belk 1988;
Featherstone 1991; Ritzer 2004). Scholars have further observed a close association
between consumption and freedom and it is argued that in this period of late capitalism
or postmodernity, consumption is increasingly defining human freedom (Bauman
[1988] 1997; Fiske [1989] 2000). In this research, we question this interpretation and
contend that the relationship between consumption and freedom is tenuous and
misleading.
In examining a subaltern group of consumers, in this research, we argue that
subaltern consumers continue to live in abysmal material conditions and their very
state of existence limits the role of consumption in contributing to freedom. Proba-
bly, the relationship between consumption and freedom can be defining only at the
margins, where consumers have the resources to exercise their freedom of choice. In
a capitalist system governed by markets, access to resources remains critical for
consumers to exercise this freedom. For a vast majority of consumers, especially
subaltern groups, production continues to be defining for their state of unfreedom.
We show that lack of empowerment in the domain of production translates into lack
of freedom in the sphere of consumption. Most significantly, through this research
we question the artificial nature of separation of the spheres of production and
consumption suggested by some theorists. We argue that capitalism as an economic
system is fundamentally concerned with its propagation and separation of the
spheres of production and consumption offers only a limited understanding of this
systemic thrust. Finally, with the concept of positive freedom we contend that a
realization of this systemic thrust is essential for subaltern groups to emancipate
themselves.

Theoretical Considerations
Freedom as a concept has been closely related to human development. In stressing the
two roles of freedom, Sen (2000, 18) observes that, “greater freedom enhances the
ability of people to help themselves and also to influence the world, and these matters
are central to the process of development.” It is further emphasized that freedom is not
only a vehicle for development, but is also one of the normative ideals in any contem-
porary society. Here, freedom can be described as the power to determine action with-
out constraints. This description highlights two important elements of power and
constraints that are central to the concept of freedom. In this interpretation, empow-
erment is the prime mover of freedom and it allows individuals to reduce constraints
that stand in the way of their liberation.
Power can be described as an opportunity existing within a social relationship that
permits one to carry out one’s own will against any resistance (Weber 1978). Specifi-
cally, empowerment refers to enhancement of social, political and economic strengths
of an individual so that s/he can resist domination of any form. In the subaltern
context, freedom implies removal of factors contributing to their subordination and
these factors can take various external forms, such as limitations of resources,
 Consumption, Markets and Culture 119
employment, education, restricted political participation, race, gender, and religion.
Furthermore, on the one hand, power can manifest itself as control and exclusion,
implying a more overt and obvious form, which Lukes ([1974] 1981) has described as
the first two dimensions of power. On the other hand, however, critical theorists have
argued that constraints are internal to individuals and need to be removed. According
to these scholars, hegemony and ideology of the ruling classes make it difficult for
subaltern groups to identify the sources of these constraints (Gramsci 1971; Marcuse
1968; Marx 1978). Several consumer researchers working within the critical framework
have acknowledged the role of ideology and hegemony (e.g. Hetrick and Lozada 1994;
Hirschman 1993; Murray and Ozanne 1991). Accordingly, consciousness is probably
the most difficult form of empowerment because of its internalized character. At the
same time, hegemony is also the most contentious source of power and several theo-
rists have expressed their skepticism about its influence (de Certeau 1988; Scott 1985).
These scholars argue that critical theorists have failed to understand the expressions of
subaltern protest.
These competing views on empowerment have directly influenced extant theoriza-
tion on freedom, which has been interpreted as positive and negative liberty (Berlin
1969; Fromm 1949). Negative freedom entails absence of external constraints and is
situated in the realm of individual action. Specifically, Berlin (1969) points out that
negative freedom is concerned with the area in which the subject should be left free
without interference. Also interpreted as “freedom from,” Berlin (1969, 122)
describes negative freedom as, “I am normally said to be free to the degree to which
no man or body of men interferes with my activity.” Accordingly, a consumer will
not be free if s/he desires a product and it is not available because of external
resource constraints or government policies. Thus, negative freedom requires
removal of these resource constraints or of faulty government regulations and it can
be deduced that negative theories rely on an opportunity concept (Berlin 1969;
Taylor 1979). In the current neo-liberal phase of global capitalism, freedom is popu-
larly used in its negative sense with considerable emphasis in the economic and polit-
ical doctrines on liberating markets from state intervention. In this discourse, state is
considered as the primary fetter and the neo-liberal theorists seek removal of these
external government constraints for markets to function efficiently (e.g. Friedman
2002; Hayek 1945).
Diverging from this approach, scholars arguing from the positive perspective are far
more attentive to the internal factors affecting the degree to which individuals or
groups act autonomously (e.g. Berlin 1969; Fromm 1949). The concept of positive
freedom emphasizes self-control of human action and not merely the absence of exter-
nal constraints. Berlin describes this alternate interpretation with emphasis on self-
realization/determination as,
the “positive” sense of the word “liberty” derives from the wish on part of the individual
to be his own master. I wish my life and decisions to depend on myself not on external
forces of whatever kind. I wish to be the instrument of my own, not of other men’s acts of
will. I wish to be a subject, not an object; to be moved by reasons, by conscious purposes,
which are my own, not by causes which affect me, as it were from outside. (1969, 131)
120 R. Varman & R. M. Vikas
Thus, positive freedom implies that the very desire for buying a product by a consumer
has to be critically understood. Positive theorists are not only concerned about the
issues of resources or availability, but more importantly are concerned about the possi-
bility of manipulation of consumers by media and the advertising industry (Fromm
1949; Jhally 2006). Thus, negative and positive freedoms are not merely two distinct
forms of freedom; they can be interpreted as rival interpretations of a single political
ideal. Political liberalism celebrates the concept of negative freedom, while its critics
dismiss it on the grounds of ideology, consciousness, and hegemony. In a way, this
debate is isomorphic with the rival interpretations of empowerment, and Lukes’
([1974] 1981) third dimension of hegemony captures the essence of the concerns raised
by positive theorists of freedom.
Liberal theorists have raised concerns about the possible risk of authoritarianism
with emphasis on positive freedom and have argued that it could lead to the formation
of a central authority similar to Stalinist state machinery that passes judgment on an
individual’s ability to take free decisions (e.g. Berlin 1969). The danger, according to
Berlin, here is,
Once I take this view, I am in a position to ignore the actual wishes of men or societies,
to bully, oppress, torture in the name and on behalf of their “real” selves, in the secure
knowledge that whatever is the true goal of man … must be identified with his
freedom—the free choice of his “true”, albeit often submerged and inarticulate, self.
(1969, 133)

Several scholars have acknowledged the possibility of authoritarian misuse of the

concept of positive freedom, but have still argued that the conceptualization has to be
central to our understanding of human emancipation (Fromm 1949, Taylor 1979).
These scholars contend that any interpretation that divorces self-determination from
the removal of external obstacles is an incomplete understanding of freedom. Accord-
ingly, it is positive “freedom to” rather than negative “freedom from” that truly
captures the essence of the concept. Furthermore, Fromm suggests that without posi-
tive freedom, the negative version is not only meaningless, but can also be counter
productive,
They [people] cannot go on bearing the burden of “freedom from”; they must try to escape
from freedom altogether unless they can progress from negative to positive freedom. The
principal social avenues of escape in our time are the submission to a leader, as has
happened in Fascist countries, and the compulsory conforming as is prevalent in our own
democracy. (1949, 154)

Thus, negative freedom can become a burden if it is left without positive aspects of
“freedom to.” It has been further argued that capitalism as a totalizing system of
thought creates a wedge between the two forms of liberty (Gramsci 1971; Marcuse
1968). Here, critical theorists contend that the culture industry plays a significant role
in increasing the gap between positive and negative freedoms in the contemporary
world (Fromm 1949; Horkheimer and Adorno [1944] 1998). It is in this context of
positive and negative freedom that we turn to our examination of the relationship
between freedom and consumption.
 Consumption, Markets and Culture 121
Freedom and Consumption
Historical analysis situates discovery of the “individual” as a relatively recent phenom-
enon and closely relates it to the onset of capitalism. This does not imply that individual
freedom did not exist in the pre-modern era. Rather, individuals were far more closely
tied with their collectives and social forms of existence. Fromm delineates this as
follows,
Medieval society did not deprive the individual of his freedom, because the “individual”
did not yet exist; man was still related to the world by primary ties. He did not yet
conceive of himself as an individual except through the medium of his social (which then
was also his natural) role. He did not conceive of any other persons as “individuals”
either. (1949, 49)

Bauman ([1988] 1997) comes to a similar conclusion about freedom and its close
relationship with individual identity and contends that freedom in the pre-modern era
was primarily dependent on the religious route, as it was more of a privilege that could
only be achieved through self-righteousness. According to Bauman ([1988] 1997, 37),
freedom “led through mystical immersion, philosophical refinement, extreme reli-
gious piety.” Bauman, further draws upon consumer goods for closing the link between
identity and freedom in the contemporary world,
The method of tackling the task of self construction offered by the consumer market is free
from such limitations; it can be in principle, employed by everybody, and by all at the same
time. The market method consists in selecting symbols of identity from the large pool of
goods on offer. ([1988] 1997, 63)

The linkage between consumption and human identity is a well accepted relationship
and is richly theorized in the extant literature in consumer research (e.g. Belk 1988;
Holt 1997; Thompson 1996). Although the linkage between identity and consumption
is widely acknowledged, the contentious part is the relationship with freedom. Some
postmodern consumer researchers have argued that individual identity is not a stable
self-contained nexus of values, but is a constellation of consumption practices, often
contradictory in nature (e.g. Brown 1995; Firat and Venkatesh 1995). A defining
feature of this understanding is the role of freedom or flexibility to choose consump-
tion objects (Thompson 2000; Thompson and Tambyah 1998). Drawing from such
interpretations, several scholars have attempted to draw a close relationship between
consumption and human freedom (Fiske [1989] 2000; Twitchel 1999). These theorists
have argued that consumption offers an arena in which human beings can exercise
control and freedom. Fiske observes that,
In our society the conditions of production are ones over which people have no control,
no choice about if or where to work, or about the conditions under which to work;
consumption however, offers some means of coping with the frustrations of the capitalist
condition of production. ([1989] 2000, 315)

Similarly, Bauman ([1988] 1997) suggests that consumption offers an opportunity for
continuation of relationship between freedom and capitalism. Accordingly, consumer
freedom was originally a compensation for the loss of freedom and autonomy in the
122 R. Varman & R. M. Vikas
sphere of production and having been evicted from production and communal self-
rule, the individual self-assertion found its outlet in the market game. Bauman’s
further theorization of individual identity under capitalism is based on this notion of
control in the domain of consumption,
The self-assertive individual of the early capitalist era, concerned with establishing his
own identity and getting it socially approved, is still very much alive—he only seeks the
resolution of his problems in another sphere of life, and accordingly employs different
tools. If anything freedom of choice, and the self-assertive way of life which goes with it,
is today an option open and accessible to a much larger section of society ([1988] 1997,
59–60).

Similarly, several other writers celebrating postmodernity have linked consumption

with human freedom. According to Firat and Venkatesh (1995, 240), postmodernist
quest is therefore to “enchant human life,” and to liberate the consumer from a repres-
sive, rational, technological scheme of things under modernity. Echoing the views
expressed by Fiske and Bauman about the role of consumption, Firat and Venkatesh
(1995, 251) contend that, “postmodernism creates arenas of consumption that are
fluid and nontotalizing, which means that consumers are free to engage in multiple
experiences without making commitments to any.”
The above postmodern interpretation is important in the context of our research
because much of the libratory interpretation of consumption has relied on this
philosophical development. While celebrating consumption, this line of thought has
also been critical of Marxist and Frankfurt schools for their emphases on production,
hegemony and false consciousness (e.g. Corrigan 1997; Firat and Venkatesh 1995).
Highlighting this postmodern position, Twitchell (1999, 42) claims that, “this left-
ward-leaning Germanic interpretation of the material world is vanishing as the French,
who have been so influential in semiotics and deconstruction, start to make their way
over to discussing the commercial world.” Similarly, Corrigan (1997, 1) has claimed
that consumption has replaced production as the central feature of the contemporary
existence and “now the majority of the populace have access to the ever growing
consumerist fruits of the productive tree, and so perhaps it is time to stand Marx on his
head.” Celebrating the prosperity brought about by consumer revolution, Twitchell
describes it as a new form of freedom,
We have achieved unprecedented prosperity and personal freedom. We are healthier, we
work at less exhausting jobs, and we live longer than ever. Most of this has been made
possible by consuming things, ironically spending more and more time at the carnival, less
and less in church. (1999, 27)

Theoretical works discussed so far offer an optimistic picture of the role of consump-
tion in contemporary life. While this may be true, several of the authors discussed
above have also shown concerns about the power wielded by corporations and market
forces (e.g. Firat and Venkatesh 1995; Firat and Dholakia 1998; Firat and Askegaard
1997). Primary concerns of these authors have been about the totalizing and commod-
ifying influences of markets, based on which they conclude that transcending markets
is essential for consumption to achieve its libratory promise,
 Consumption, Markets and Culture 123
It is therefore necessary to identify a social space beyond the reach of the market by
positioning the consumer in the “life world” and outside the market system. … True
emancipation of the consumer can materialize if s/he were able to move to these in these
social spaces without the perennial panopticon of the market. (Firat and Venkatesh 1995,
258)

In spite of these problems, many of these theorists, however, get carried away by the
rhetoric of postmodernity and forget their own concerns about markets and capital-
ism. For example, rather curiously, while acknowledging the limitations of consump-
tion in the capitalist context, Firat and Venkatesh almost wishfully assert that,
But this is not postmodern consumption. It is consumption stimulated by the postmodern
conditions that are always already present in modernity—but that are now increasingly
liberated thanks to the waning of modern ideologies and the waxing of postmodern
culture—caught in the contemporary primacy of the market. As the hegemony of the
market decreases and the post modern culture gains ground, consumers, as producers of
their self-images and (hyper) realities will find a new freedom that is partially possible to
predict and partially yet to be discovered. (1995, 256)

In this neo-liberal phase of global capitalism, any assumption about a decline in the
“hegemony of markets” is rather simplistic. Here, we draw upon another important
work about consumption and emancipation by Kozinets (2002), who offers a vivid
account of freedom, consumption, and markets. Observing the ritual of “Burning
Man,” Kozinets finds that even with a form of consumer resistance designed to achieve
the purpose of transcending commercial life, escape from market forces is only a
limited reality and the ritual is steeped in high levels of materialism. Kozinets is well
aware of the irony of the situation and points out that these attempts to escape the
market forces of rationalization and efficiency are paradoxically marked by high levels
of market based consumption. This paradox also runs central to Bauman’s thesis on
freedom. While highlighting the role of consumption in offering freedom, Bauman
acknowledges that freedom under capitalism is nothing but an elitist privilege,
It is far from clear whether consumerism may exist, on the world scale, as something other
than a privilege … it can be argued that with equal force that the consumer solution to the
systemic problems of some societies is more than contingently linked to the milking of
other societies’ resources. ([1988] 1997, 94)

The above description by Bauman alludes to a defining characteristic of capitalism:

consumption controlled by market forces requires systemic exploitation of subaltern
groups and nation states at the periphery of the global system in order to produce
surplus and cheap goods for societies at the center. This is a fundamental pre-requisite
for consumer revolution to take place in the richer countries and for consumption to have
a separate life form of its own. Analyzing the state of freedom under capitalism, Cohen
(1979, 15) asserts that proletariat is an enslaved class and “to think of capitalism as a
realm of economic freedom is to miss half of its nature.” Thus, separation of produc-
tion and consumption is itself an elitist privilege only to be exercised by a small minority
in the globalized world. This elitism in the extant theorization, which is full of rheto-
ric of free choice, cannot wish away the complex interplay between production and
freedom under capitalism. Consumption in flea markets and family reunions
124 R. Varman & R. M. Vikas
probably offers arenas for some consumers to escape markets (Firat and Venkatesh
1995). However, Kozinets (2002) shows that such escapes are quite limited and
Bauman ([1988] 1997) firmly places them in the grasp of only those consumers who
have the resource power.
In summary, individual freedom is considered a recent event in human history and
is closely related to empowerment and removal of constraints. Here, positive and nega-
tive theorists have offered competing descriptions of constraints and routes to empow-
erment. Extant theorization has also highlighted the role of consumption in increasing
human freedom. In our review, we have highlighted the problems involved in drawing
linkages between consumption and freedom. Critical theorists have challenged the
simplistic separation of the various spheres of human existence and have questioned
such claims about human emancipation. It has been argued that capitalism is a totaliz-
ing system of production, consumption, and underlying ideology, and any meaningful
analysis of freedom under capitalism requires an examination of these three elements
in their totality. Based on this review, we argue that for a proper understanding of
human freedom, this examination has to be taken to consumers who are least free
within the system—subaltern groups in a marginalized third world society. It is this
subaltern group that we examine in our film.

Methodology
In order to understand the relationship between consumption and freedom, we
conducted a videography. This approach involved extended usage of video that helped
us to arrive at a deep level of understanding of subaltern consumption practices. The
fieldwork primarily consisted of participant observation and formal/informal
interviews. It is argued that videographic methods add richness and depth to our
understanding of consumption processes (Belk and Kozinets 2005).
This study was conducted in the North Indian city of Kanpur. Specifically, we
conducted research at a construction site and slums of consumers in a major university
in the area. We laid special emphasis on collecting vignettes and narrations related to
living and working conditions of these consumers. This was purposefully done to bring
to the fore, the relationship among the dimensions of production, consumption, and
freedom.
At a broad level, we undertook several steps as part of the videography. We examined
the work place by recording everyday activities in the sphere of production. We also
extensively shot in the slums, where these consumers lived, in order to provide a rich
account of their levels of consumption. At the same time, the interviews with these
consumers provided insights on work, consumption, and freedom. In total we
conducted thirty-one interviews with twenty-two male and nine female participants.
The data consists of nearly 12 hours of video that was digitized and stored as computer
files. It also included nearly 20 hours of audio-recorded interviews that were separately
transcribed and filed.
Trustworthiness is a required feature for methodological soundness in a qualitative
work (Erlandson et al. 1993). Following techniques for establishing trustworthiness
 Consumption, Markets and Culture 125
were followed: prolonged engagement, persistent observation, triangulation, peer
debriefing, and purposive sampling.

Discussion
Several theorists have argued that consumption is a new form of religion with its
objects of worship in consumer goods and its places of worship in shopping malls.
Furthermore, consumption also has its rituals that help consumers in giving meaning
to their daily lives (Belk, Wallendorf, and Sherry 1989; McCracken 1988). Importantly,
as is the case with other religions, consumption also promises enchantment and salva-
tion (Ritzer 2004). Our film illustrates that the promise of salvation, however, remains
as much of an illusion as it ever did with other conventional religions. The oppressive
character of modern day existence for subaltern groups is also a reminder about the
failure of consumption to reenchant the world. Consumption like Hinduism, the
religion of most of our participants has a well-entrenched caste system, which works on
resource power with its own dalits or untouchables. This research is an account of such
dalits and our film provides a graphic description of wretched living conditions of
subaltern consumers and it also makes an attempt to understand their working
conditions.
Several theorists have opined that consumption offers a distinct sphere of freedom
for consumers in postmodernity (Bauman [1988] 1997; Firat and Venkatesh 1995;
Twitchell 1999). Our data show that subaltern consumers are fettered and are unfree
to consume. Our findings support Cohen’s (1979) contention that the much-touted
marriage between capitalism and freedom never took place for a vast majority of the
global population. These subaltern groups exist under a totalizing influence of capital-
ism and postmodern freedom through decentering, fragmentation or hyperreality
offers only a limited explanation of their existence. Our video provides an account of
extremely tough working conditions for these consumers. These subaltern groups do
not have any legal protection, despite existing government laws, to ensure payment of
minimum wages. Inefficient and corrupt government machinery fails to provide any
protection to these workers against exploitation by their employers. This group puts in
long working hours, far exceeding legal working limits, without any system of over-
time payment. These subaltern groups lack employment guarantees, which make them
particularly vulnerable to exploitation. Levine (2004, 106) contends that disempow-
ered groups suffering from abject poverty become unfree in the sphere of work, “[its]
a condition in which freedom cannot be exercised either because the means are
unavailable, or because the capability to make use of these means has not been allowed
to develop.” Theorists such as Fiske ([1989] 2000) and Bauman ([1988] 1997)
acknowledge that in capitalism, loss of freedom at the work place is ubiquitous.
According to these authors, however, consumers are compensated in the sphere of
consumption and are able to discover their lost freedom.
Disempowered workers in the sphere of production find it impossible to protest and
demand better wages or exercise greater control of their working conditions. This film
shows that disempowerment in the domain of production directly translates into
126 R. Varman & R. M. Vikas
unfreedom for workers in the sphere of consumption. It can be seen in the video that
subaltern consumers struggle to make their two ends meet and they live in shanty
houses surrounded by extremely unhygienic conditions. These houses are also over-
crowded with little personal space for their inhabitants. Food consumption just about
meets the bare minimum requirement that is necessary for the biological survival of
this group of consumers. These wretched living conditions lead to frequent outbreak
of diseases, which further worsen the lives of these consumers. Our data show that most
of these subaltern consumers barely possess a set or two of clothing, which are just
about adequate to cover their bodies. Low levels of access in the areas of food, clothing,
and shelter, provide a powerful, albeit tragic, description of unfreedom for this
subaltern consumer group.
These conditions force us to question the libratory potential of consumption and its
separation from production as is celebrated by some authors (e.g. Bauman [1988]
1997; Fiske [1989] 2000; Twitchell 1999). Our data show that the theoretical emphasis
on consumption in a world of such abject poverty is as if, “we can’t really change or
even understand the system … and if we don’t, and can’t, have a vantage point from
which to criticize the system, let alone oppose it, we might as well lie back and enjoy
it—or better still, go shopping” (Wood 1997, 9). Our film challenges this approach and
firmly establishes the link between freedom and production under capitalism as a
system. Here, we argue that powerlessness in the sphere of production translates into
unfreedom in other spheres, including consumption. Thus, in a world of ubiquitous
markets for a consumer to be free, resource power is a necessary pre-requisite. Our film
illustrates that the current level of consumption by subaltern consumers is just about
adequate to sustain this group as productive workers in the capitalist system. Here, we
find our research supporting Baudrillard’s (1969) early work on ideological genesis of
needs. Questioning the idea of individual needs, Baudrillard contends that consump-
tion is a systemic requirement of capitalism for reproducing itself,
In other words, there are only needs because the system needs them. And the needs
invested by the individual consumer today are just as essential to the order of production
as capital invested by the capitalist entrepreneur and the labor power invested by the wage
laborer. It is all capital. Hence, there is a compulsion to need and a compulsion to
consume. (1969, 73–74, emphasis in original)
The “religion” metaphor used to describe consumption at the beginning of this
section further illustrates the problem of freedom in consumption. Our illustrative
account of the consumer buying a television in order to catch up with his better off rela-
tives and diverting funds from allocation for the purpose of buying milk for children
demonstrates the oppressive nature of the rituals of consumption. Our data show that
the consumer under study was making enough money to meet the basic necessities of
life and could be described as “better off.” However, similar to religions and their
promise of salvation, quest for self-identity and classification are constantly moving
targets. They always remain a promise without actually coming in grasp of these
consumers. Carroll (1998, 126) observes that, “shopping world tries to play the role of
eternal seducer, arousing extravagant expectations, and then keeping just enough
interest and just enough distance not to break the spell.” This consumer hopes that
 Consumption, Markets and Culture 127
television will provide the much-needed respect for him in the eyes of his relatives, and
yet he concedes that it remains elusive. And to complicate matters, this attempt at
salvation comes at the cost of cutting on basic necessities for his children.
Theorists such as Berlin (1969) who use the lens of negative freedom will find the
above case less problematic than positive theorists. Berlin will question the very cate-
gorization of necessities and argue that freedom for consumers requires removal of
constraints such as work place exploitation, unavailability of consumer goods, and
poor housing. Our film makes a definitive case for this form of freedom and it is quite
obvious from the data that workers lack negative freedom and the removal of the
obstacles listed above is necessary.
This, however, is only half of the picture and the other half involves understanding
of positive freedom as Fromm (1949) has argued. Our film provides a powerful
account of emphasis on positive freedom through self-determination for consumers
to emancipate themselves in the realm of consumption. The case of the consumer
described above shows that consumption itself can become a panopticon and free-
dom entails self-realization and our research supports Fromm’s contention that
human freedom lacking in positive control is only limited emancipation. This free-
dom in the sphere of consumption is, as Fromm (1949, 266) appropriately argues, not
liberation but life in “which the isolated individual becomes an automaton, loses his
self, and yet at the same time consciously conceives of himself as free and subject only
to himself.” Positive freedom is necessary because in its current form markets, corpo-
rations, and elite reference groups control the ideology of consumption. Without
positive empowerment, subaltern groups do not exercise their control and the
connection between freedom and consumption remains similar to Kotlowitz’s
interpretation of the participation of African Americans in the mainstream American
society,
And so, in lieu of building real connections—by providing opportunities or rebuilding
communities—we have found some common ground as purchasers of each other’s trade-
marks. At best, that link is tenuous; at worst, it’s false. It lets us believe that we are
connected when the distance, in fact is much farther than anyone cares to admit. ([1999]
2000, 258)
Finally, positive freedom brings us back to the issue of consciousness and under-
standing of the ideological forces at a systemic level. Our data corroborate critical
theories about the exploitation of subaltern groups under capitalism. The production
system described by us supports the analysis of capitalism provided by Marx (1983),
which focuses on generation of surplus value through exploitation of labor. This,
according to Marx (1983), is the fundamental law on which the capitalist system
works and freedom for a subaltern group cannot become a reality unless they are
emancipated from the economic system of capitalism. In the socio-cultural sphere,
Baudrillard’s analysis of consumption has further enriched our understanding of
these systemic dimensions. Consumers described in the video do not exercise free-
dom in the sphere of consumption or work, with their existence as another factor of
production. We agree with Baudrillard that this state of unfreedom has to be under-
stood at a systemic level,
128 R. Varman & R. M. Vikas
We must abandon the constitutive social structure of the individual, and even his lived
perception of himself: for man never really comes face to face with his own needs. … In
this instance, man is not reproduced as man: he is simply regenerated as a survivor (a
surviving productive force). If he eats, drinks, lives somewhere, reproduces himself, it is
because the system requires his self-production in order to reproduce itself. If it could
function with slaves, there would be no “free” workers. (1969, 76)

Thus, in order to understand unfreedom of the consumers described in the video it is

necessary to unravel the relationship between their production system and the
economic system of capitalism. Subaltern groups are forced into unfree existence
because their work follows a capitalist mode of production, and as delineated by
Baudrillard, it is this systemic logic that also entails unfreedom in the sphere of
consumption.
In summary, several scholars have taken for granted the notion of freedom in the
sphere of consumption. This axiomatic treatment has led to a theoretical separation of
the domains of production and consumption. Our videography challenges this under-
standing and demonstrates the centrality of work in contemporary life and makes a
case for enhancement of capabilities in the sphere of production for empowerment of
such subaltern consumer groups. We also reopen the debate on positive and negative
interpretations of freedom and contend that although removal of external constraints
is necessary, it is the unfreedom in a positive sense that requires a deeper understand-
ing. Finally, in critically examining consumer freedom, we have argued that unfreedom
of subaltern groups is a systemic necessity in the spheres of production and consump-
tion under capitalism.

Conclusions
In this research, we argue that abject poverty and abysmal living conditions of
subaltern consumers require a rethink about the role of consumption and markets
under capitalism. In the contemporary world, a vast majority of population still
struggles to survive and capitalist relations of production are defining and also form
the strongest fetters for these groups. Subaltern groups suffer extreme forms of
exploitation in the sphere of production, with low wages and absence of any form
of social security. The panopticon at work leaves little room for freedom in the
sphere of consumption. We have argued that loss of control in production cannot
be compensated in the domain of consumption. This dependence stems from exist-
ence in a market society that demands resource power from consumers to break
free.
Although resource power is a necessary condition for freedom in the sphere of
consumption, we also show that it is not a sufficient one. Positive freedom of self-real-
ization is another facet that we draw attention to. We have demonstrated that consum-
ers can continuously move in circles, seeming to chase their own tail, constantly trying
to procure more symbols of identity and status without being able to achieve control
over their lives. Thus, in the absence of positive freedom, consumers run the risk of
creating another sphere of unfreedom for themselves.
 Consumption, Markets and Culture 129
Freedom as an ideal of enlightenment is still necessary and relevant in the contem-
porary world. Every violation of it, as this film illustrates, should serve as a reminder
for a renewal of our pledge towards the ideal. However, this renewal of the pledge has
to translate into a deeper analysis of freedom. Consumption offers an opportunity to
consumers to assert their identities and to exercise freedom. In future, in a free world,
probably leisure and consumption will be prime motors of existence and these condi-
tions will also make concerns about exploitation, reification, and hegemony redun-
dant. However, merely wishing away of these constraints in the present market
mediated world of consumption is not going to resolve the crisis. Importantly, any
meaningful resolution of the crisis requires a deeper analysis of capitalism as a system
of production and not just as a symbolic order of goods. Furthermore, this analysis,
also, has to focus on the question of unjust and unequal relations of production and
this film serves as a reminder that emancipation requires human and humane control
of the sphere of production.
For the subaltern group described in the video, liberation from the systemic exploi-
tation will only translate into freedom in the domain of consumption. And until we
make an attempt to understand it as consumer researchers, we are only chasing a
mirage—mirage of freedom in consumption. It is only appropriate for an essay that
began with a very perceptive observation by Hikmet should also end with it,
There’s neither an iron, wooden
nor a tulle curtain
in your life;
there’s no need to choose freedom
you are free.
But this kind of freedom
is a sad affair under the stars. (from A Sad State of Freedom by Nazim Hikmet)

References
Baudrillard, Jean. 1969. The ideological genesis of needs. In The consumer society reader, edited by
Juliet B. Schor and Douglas B. Holt. New York: The New Press, 57–80.
Bauman, Zygmunt. [1988] 1997. Freedom. New Delhi: World View.
Belk, Russell W. 1988. Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research 15 (Septem-
ber): 139–68.
Belk, Russell W., and Robert Kozinets. 2005. Videography in marketing and consumer research.
Qualitative Market Research 8 (2): 128–41.
Belk, Russell W., Melanie Wallendorf, and John F. Sherry. 1989. The sacred and the profane in
consumer behavior: Theodicy on the Odyssey. Journal of Consumer Research 16 (June): 1–38.
Berlin, Isaiah. 1969. Four essays on liberty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brown, Stephen. 1995. Postmodern marketing. London: Routeledge.
Carroll, John. 1998. Ego and soul. Sydney: HarperCollins.
Cohen, G. A. 1979. Capitalism, freedom and the proletariat. In The idea of freedom, edited by Alan
Ryan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 9–25.
Corrigan, Peter. 1997. The sociology of consumption. London: Sage.
de Certeau, Michel. 1988. The practice of everyday life. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Erlandson, David A., Edward Harris, Barbara L. Skipper, and Steve D. Allen. 1993. Doing naturalistic
inquiry: A guide to methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
130 R. Varman & R. M. Vikas
Featherstone, Mike. 1991. Consumer culture and postmodernism. London: Sage.
Firat, Fuat, and Søren Askegaard. 1997. Towards a critique of material culture, consumption and
markets. In Experiencing material culture in the western world, edited by Susan M. Pearce.
London: Leicester University Press, 114–39.
Firat, Fuat, and Nikhilesh Dholakia. 1998. Consuming people: From political economy to theaters of
consumption. London: Routledge.
Firat, Fuat, and Alladi Venkatesh. 1995. Liberatory postmodernism and the reenchantment of
consumption. Journal of Consumer Research 22 (December): 239–67.
Fiske, John. [1989] 2000. Shopping for pleasure: Malls, power, and resistance. In The consumer
society reader, edited by Juliet B Schor and Douglas B. Holt. New York: The New Press:
306–28.
Friedman, Milton. 2002. The social responsibility of the business is to increase its profits. In Perspec-
tives of business ethics, edited by Laura P. Hartman. New Delhi: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Fromm, Eric. 1949. Escape from freedom. New York: Avon Books.
Gramsci, Antonio. 1971. Selections from the prison notebooks of Antonio Gramsci, translated by
Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith. New York: International Publishers.
Hayek, F. A. 1945. The use of knowledge in society. The American Economic Review 35 (4): 519–30.
Hetrick, William, and Hector Lozada. 1994. Constructing the critical imagination: Comments and
necessary diversions. Journal of Consumer Research 21 (December): 548–58.
Hikmet, Nazim. A sad state of freedom. Translated by Taner Baybars. Available at http://judithpordon.
tripod.com/poetry/nazim_hikmet_sad_state_of_freedom.html, accessed on April 5, 2006.
Hirschman, Elizabeth. 1993. Ideology in consumer research, 1980 and 1990: A Marxist and feminist
critique. Journal of Consumer Research 19 (March): 537–55.
Holt, Douglas B. 1997. Poststructuralist lifestyle analysis: Conceptualizing the social patterning of
consumption in postmodernity. Journal of Consumer Research 23 (March): 326–50.
Horkheimer, Max, and Theodor Adorno. [1944] 1998. Dialectic of enlightenment. New York:
Continuum.
Jhally, Sut. 2006. “Advertising at the Edge of the Apocalypse.” Available at http://www.sutjhally.com/
lectures/lectures_frame.html, accessed 20 August 2006.
Kotlowitz, Alex. [1999] 2000. False connections. In The consumer society reader, edited by Juliet B.
Schor and Douglas B. Holt. New York: The New Press, 253–58.
Kozinets, Robert. 2002. Can consumers escape the market? Emancipatory illuminations from burn-
ing man. Journal of Consumer Research 29 (June): 20–38.
Levine, David. 2004. Poverty, capabilities and freedom. Review of Political Economy 16 (January):
101–15.
Lukes, Steven. [1974] 1981. Power: A radical view. London: Macmillan Press.
Marcuse, Herbert. 1968. One dimensional man. Boston: Beacon Press.
Marx, Karl. 1978. The German ideology. New York: W. W. Norton.
———. 1983. Capital. Vol. 1. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
McCracken, Grant. 1988. Culture and consumption: A theoretical account of the structure and move-
ment of the cultural meaning of consumer goods. Journal of Consumer Research 13 (January):
71–85.
Murray, Jeff, and Julie Ozanne. 1991. The critical imagination: Emancipatory interests in consumer
research. Journal of Consumer Research 18 (September): 129–44.
Ritzer, George. 2004. Enchanting a disenchanted world: Revolutionizing the means of consumption. 2d
ed. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge.
Scott, James C. 1985. Weapons of the weak. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Sen, Amaratya. 2000. Development as freedom. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Taylor, Charles. 1979. What is wrong with negative liberty. In The idea of freedom, edited by Alan
Ryan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 175–93.
Thompson, Craig. 1996. Caring consumers: Gendered consumption meanings and juggling lifestyle.
Journal of Consumer Research 22 (March): 388–407.
 Consumption, Markets and Culture 131
———. 2000. Postmodern consumer goals made easy!!!! In The why of consumption: Contemporary
perspectives on consumer motives, goals, and desires, edited by S. Ratneshwar, David G. Mick,
and Cynthia Huffman. New York: Routledge, 121–39.
Thompson, Craig, and Siok Tambyah. 1998. Rethinking theories of “consumer culture” through
postmodern analysis of consumption and the production of hybrid cultural forms. Advances
in Consumer Research 25: 58–59.
Twitchell, James. 1999. Lead us to temptation. New York: Columbia University Press.
Weber, Max. 1978. Economy and society. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Wood, Ellen Meiksins. 1997. What is the “postmodern” agenda? In Defense of history: Marxism and
the postmodern agenda, edited by Ellen M. Wood and John B. Foster. New York: Monthly
Review Press, 1–16.