This is my first post in the line of discussing consumer behavior in a critical yet functional way. In order to create a proper room for the following aspects and discussions I intend to span a spectrum between two different views on consumer behavior:
The first view I might call "Suboptimal Consumtion Thesis". In this view, our behavior as consumers shows simply areas in which we can improve the way we buy and consume, may it be that we buy things we do not necessarily need or we buy at a too high price or we could buy things that would satisfy our needs in a better or more sustainable way. It is very rational and calculated way to look at our behavior as consumers and simply has the approach to optimize it in terms of better fitting our - or eventually also society's - needs.
The second view I want to call "Clinical Consumption Thesis". From this point of view, we as consumers are mostly unaware of our true motivations for buying and consuming things. Although we might always find and be able to articulate rational reasons for our behavior, the true reasons are different and have a lot to do with being essentially unable to satisfy other, more important needs. These needs are deep-seated, natural-biological needs that characterize us as human beings and have genuine social connotations. So, for example because we strive for love, appreciation, sex, self-confidence, control, etc. we buy things that give us the illusion of an shortcut to reaching these goals by allowing us to socially self-portray us in a more favorable light (e.g. by conspicuous consumption of luxury goods, trendy brands, well-known fashion etc.).
In order to illustrate these two perspectives a bit better, I want to offer to citations, one for each view. The first citation stems from Sheena Iyengar's book "The Art of Choosing", in which she vividly explains how our culture but also our very own mind influences us in the way we are making decisions of choice:
"We like to think that the free market functions in a way that protects us from inferior or unnecessary products. After all, if the individual brands are all competing with one another, then it seems logical that in order to succeed they must develop superior products that people need. And wouldn't false or exaggerated advertising by one brand be pointed out and refuted by a competitor? Not when colluding with the 'enemy' is more profitable than debunking the whole idea behind the product that you also sell."
Iyengar then goes on pointing out how we in reality have far fewer qulitatively different options than we perceive and how this makes our consumerist freedom of choice more of an illusion than an existing liberty. Especially she tries to prove how we pay too much because of these illusions (e.g. for the same water or cosmetics in different packaging) and that we might just use our reason to "decide to switch to a generic cola and save" some money. Although I appreciate the critical way of thinking reflected by this view, I have my doubts that it really hits the bottom of the problem. My biggest issue with this kind of argumentation is that it does not cope with a huge structural deficit which is underlying our consumerist culture: Because of our extensive craving for "freedom", we have actually morally undermined our markets and made them "indifferent" with regard to any value, and even more: "value-free" in a morally precarious way. This has the effect that as consumers we can only enact our freedom of choice on the ground of comparing the existing offers in a rational way - mostly only by comparing prices rather than real values. The missing alternative offer, which would really satisfy our needs, will most probably not be represented on the market due to either lack of profitability or creativity on the side of the producers. But can we really make the producers alone responsible for this "value gap"? Coming back to Iyengar's advice to switch to generic cola instead of Coke: This example shows perfectly the efficiency of rationality but more so its lack of effectiveness in the absence of values. How does some "cheap generic version" of an unhealthy sugar-drink offer you a better solution than the equally unhealthy original drink other than "saving a few bucks"? Consumer behavior is not only about saving but also - and much more so - about satisfying your needs. And here, your need would most probably be to drink a refreshing but also healthy drink (at least if we are talking about our "evolved consumer" who tries to overcome bad consumer behavior. But is there a common ground for determining what actually is healthy for every consumer? Let's assume for now that there is such a common ground and science might help us to elaborate the values we are looking for. In this case, we could for example rely on evolutionary insights into healthy nutrition, like Steven Platek's highly useful advice, or simply apply our own natural reason and find out that simple tap water might be more healthy than any sugary soft drink, even for an American consumer who regards soft-drinks like Coke as part of her/his very own cultural identity.
But let's get back on track. I promised you another citing for the second view of consumer behavior, the "Clinical Consumption Thesis". For this citation I want to draw on Susan Long's article "The Tyranny of the Customer and the Cost of Consumerism":
"The values of consumerism, it seems, are linked to a view of the independent individual rather than the community. Argued here, however, is, that on the evidence of psychoanalysis, or general social psychology, that this individual is a myth (Stack-Sullivan, 1950; Lacan, 1977). More likely, the subject he or she appears to be is either a person separated from the community in a withdrawn and counterdependent manner, or one who does not recognize the essential relatedness diat embeds them. That is, one who is linked through the role of "provider" or 'consumer' in a relation of mutual perceived advantage, rather than through a pie thora of relations grounded in additional moral bases, such as provided through values of loyalty, devotion, care, etc. Community relations under such an ideology become economic and instrumental rather than developed through shared work where trust is established by means of mutual experience. … Growing globalization and uncertainty about the future leaves people in a vulnerable state in their work organizations. Rather than working through their very real dependencies, many have drawn back to a pseudoindependence aided by the ideologies of the predominant enterprise/consumer discourse. Yet we are at a time in history when interdependence is critical. John Bowlby's (1988) theory of attachment is relevant here. When a child is attached to an important other (say the mother) lengthy separation results in three stages-protest, withdrawal, and finally pseudo-adaptation where the child develops a mistrusting and detached attitude which is hidden by a superficial mode of being in relationships. The final adaptation is fundamentally instrumental."
Long's general point is that we as consumerist societies have collapsed a lot of complex roles into one overly-simplistic form of behavior: "the customer". She argues that along with the decline of large value-based institutions like religion, societies have lost a lot of complex interdependencies between their members and have fled to an economically instrumental form of pseudo-independence, where an individual can narcistically be "customer king". Everything else, including traditional values, has then been gradually eroded and subjected to an economic rationalism which is only interested in an increasing profitability. While this view might certainly have some relevance and bear a lot of brisance for the interpretation of consumer behavior, it neither offers a practical way of improving the classic, freedom-oriented view of our markets nor gives any practical advice for the individual consumer itself. How can he overcome his pitiful role of being a pseudo-independent, anxious narcissist? What about his practical everyday-needs: What does this psycho-analytic view tell him to buy instead of product A? Or should he simply stop buying at all and try to reach an autonomous state by providing his own food all by himself? What other way to deal with all the technical complexities in our globalized world is there if not to devise responsibility, also in the context of buying and consuming decisions, to the individual? Long rightly refers to traditional values like loyalty, devotion and care but fails to tell us how we can properly enact them in our everyday life - as consumers. And even if we manage to somehow overcome our traditional, overly-simplistic consumer-role, how can we live out our role as "evolved consumers" properly? Where and how can we implement our democratic and basic human values into this role? On what knowledge can we draw to identify the concrete value-based guidelines for our informed consumer behavior? And in what relation do we have to place our new roles as "evolved consumer" against our other roles as "citizicens", "employees", "parents", "romantic partners", "friends", ...?
