Consumerism is a Form of Social Control

Categorised in:

This article is a response to 'Is debate dead's' most recent topic.

Firstly I think it worth pointing out that consumerism is a rather generic term which seeks to conote the general relationship between the focus of consumerism i.e. the consumer/customer/person and those creating or engaging in attempts to market to the consumer. I want to try and shy away from provacative language, as clearly the idea of social control is laden with meaning. For this reason I have negated the temptation to value laden the relationship between the consumer and those in a relationship with the consumer. 

In respect of the social, despite initially thinking it required definition, I think instead that I will approach it as Wittgenstein might, namely looking at the word in context. In this instance in relation to it being placed with control, we have to view it in a power relation, and in that respect we can begin to see that in this instance we might want to look at institutions of power that have a relationship with consumers. Having studied Ethnography which is a qualitative grouping of methodologies seeking to examine various fractions of society, I have come to see the social realm as that which outlines groups, be it purely defined be demography, or more complex groupings such as those of ideology.

However it might now be appropriate to point out that the parties who denied there is social control in consumerism, failed to define social within its proper context. The process of definition is not to fit it for your motivation in a debate, but to see a word and its meaning in relation to the real world. In this respect their definition failed because they tried to equate social with ideology alone, instead of recognising ideological social groups such as those with political dimensions as one type of social grouping subcategory. For this reason alone we could dismiss their a priori point, and therefore the whole basis of their argument. 

There were however several other arguments worth discussion. The central and important premise seems to be the idea of free will, as opposed to a determinism or or some form of behaviourism based in psychological underlying states of identification of denotation and connotation with in consumerism methods of persuasion or marketing.

This is the point where I think it is appropriate to outline the relationships between the consumer and the marketer. Essentially marketing and advertising control (and therefore hold the power) over the distribution of perceptions in the consumer of products sold to the consumer. We might therefore focus our attention upon marketing and advertising and therefore identify these as institutions. We cannot say to what degree these institutions affect our behaviour but we might begin by pointing out it is their intention to influence it to one degree or another. 

It might be worth mentioning that in philosophy and psychology whether there is a free will is a current debate, one that has not been wholy resolved. Yet evidence is emerging that it seems to be a complex combination of determinism and free will. That certain aspects of our perceptions and consciousness may indeed be free, yet other aspects seem to certainly be influenced by instinct and our genetic makeup. I think it would be foolish at this stage in our understanding of the human animal to suppose that we are entirely free, and can therefore have absolute determination over our own decision making processes. Certainly it seems likely that in areas such as eating and nesting instincts it is difficult to see how nature could not be at the very least very influential.

Having said all this, I think it now worth taking a specific case to make my point. Namely the act of seeing and perhaps examples such as photographs will be used to illustrate my point. 

In terms of photography, two of the central questions in visual media is how we read a photograph and what is a photograph. There is an underlying contradiction within a photographs epistemology, lying between what we suppose a photograph tells us and what it does tell us. For example suppose you have a photograph of a family scene, we might think that it is a clear representation, yet this true representation has been selected, lighting may have been manipulated, the scene itself may exclude other features of the room that could be telling about the reality taking place beyond the cameras sensor. The trouble is that when a human looks at a photograph we as a view have a tendency to perceive that image at face value, regardless of what lies beneath the surface. When we read a photograph we do not read it consciously like we have to read a book, the meaning is immediately read and interpreted by our subconscious, which is why psychoanalysis is useful as a methodology to look at how our minds might subconsciously interpret images constructed by institutions of consumer ideology and meaning of products such as as those of marketing and advertising. In other words the relationships between denotation and connotation in the reading of images, and the value of thinking in terms of semiotics and pyschoanalysis in conjuction. 

Although I could go into more detail I think it is inappropriate and meaningless to continue without feedback. But a final thought before I hand over. Paris in the 19th century reconstructed the center, thousands of people were displaced, more we expected to move out, the center was organised into long boulevards to draw the eye in specific ways, shopping arcades were built, where the shopper could continuously browse and stop for lunch or a coffee. Window displays became more organised and preoccupied with the gendered female gaze. The true beginnings or relating consumerism to act of seeing as a science and economic preoccupation had begun. Foucault wrote about about Benthams idea of a panopticon prison where a central tower would be used to watch inmates, and where the inmates could not see the guards, because of the shape of the prison the prisoners would not be able to see one another. So each prisoner could be seen but could not see. The idea of controling perceptions and therefore having power over the individual was a central idea to this.

I don't know if anyone has visited the lakeside shopping center. It is in essence a shape that allows you to go around and around in a huge circle (more of a square but the effect is the same). It is almost disorientating in its size and the endless amounts of shops can seem overwhelming to those who do not wish to embrace its value system. Its almost as though when you walk around it, you just keep walking and shopping around and around, for hour upon hour. Like a self imposed elevator. The key to its success is clearly related to its shape, and this has a clear psychological influence upon the 'consumer'. Regardless of how influencial and socially controlling such an environment is, there is no doubt that the intentions and therefore the effect are of influencing behaviour. The question posed was not whether consumerism was absolutely powerful in controlling human buying behaviour. There was no indication of degree. So within the confines of that dilute question influence is enough to fulfill the criteria. For me there is no doubt that an environment such as the lakeside shopping center has influence and therefore a degree of control of social behaviour groups.