Why Do We Live In an Age of Consumerism?

We live in an age where we prioritize the social status or prestige that items grant us over their practical utility - how did we get here?

We live in an age of $30,000 shoes, $150 bricks, and a multitude of other ridiculously overpriced items. An age where we are increasingly less concerned with the ‘usefulness’ of items, and care more about the social status or prestige that items give us, or how they allow us to be perceived. We live through our items, our material purchases, and although the feelings they grant us fade relatively quickly (which cages us in this cycle of endlessly needing to purchase new things), we find a weird sense of freedom, happiness, confidence, and identity within purchasing things.

In other words, we live in an age of consumerism.

Today, I’ll be exploring some ideas from Jean Baudrillard, a French sociologist and philosopher, as well as from Herbert Marcuse, a German-American philosopher and social critic. Specifically, I’ll be sharing their thoughts on consumerism and its harms. It is worth noting that, although both of these philosophers criticized our current capitalist system and consumerism, they also were both critics of communism. Many, especially during their time, were quick to associate them with Marxism, but this is not what their ideas were about. I find these two thinkers especially interesting because they represent the ability to critique our current capitalist system without having to fall into a predetermined category which anti-capitalists are frequently associated with.

Let’s dive in.

---

Jean Baudrillard

Jean Baudrillard (1929-2007) was a French philosopher, sociologist, and poet. In addition to consumerism, his work touched on a variety of subjects, including economics, social history, aesthetics, and political science. I must say, I don’t agree with all of Baudrillard’s ideas, but I do agree with his thoughts on consumerism.

Baudrillard on Consumerism

Multi-thousand dollar shoes, people camping out overnight just to have the chance to purchase items from a ‘prestigious’ brand, and the creation of a multi-billion dollar resale market for luxury items - how did we get here?

Baudrillard argued that sometime between the 1920s and 1960s, capitalism went through a transition. The system transitioned from an earlier stage of capitalism, known as “competitive market capitalism”, to what we have now, which is “monopoly capitalism”. During this transition period, corporations began to focus on lowering production costs, expanding production, and experimenting with new and emerging technologies. All of these new focuses ultimately led corporations to place an importance on wanting to steer and control demand. After all, the only way that increased and cheaper production can be beneficial, is if you can control and catalyze demand. Without the ability to control demand, increased production is economic suicide. Corporations came up with the following way to control and catalyze demand; to manufacture it. By creating artificial prestige around items, it effectively allows companies to manufacture demand for their items. By ‘artificial prestige’, I’m not solely talking about luxury fashion items - the celebrity associated with a specific sports drink, the social status associated with a specific refrigerator, and the way you are perceived based on what coffee you drink, are all examples of ‘artificial prestige’.

To describe this ‘artificial prestige’, Baudrillard coined the term “sign-value”.¹ Sign value is essentially the prestige or social status granted by a specific item, a type of value that has no correlation to the items ‘usefulness’. For example, the multi-thousand dollar shoes that I described at the start of this essay have the same amount of usefulness as a $15 pair of shoes bought at a discount outlet (that is to say, that they both protect your feet and allow for a comfortable walking experience), yet one is valued more due to its sign value.

Baudrillard put forward the idea that needs are constructed, and that all purchases are made in order to convey something socially. This is also why he argued that, within our current capitalist system, consumption is more important than production itself, as the consumption of an item is the only way that mass production can be useful for corporations.

The following excerpt from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains sign value in an excellent fashion;

“On Baudrillard’s analysis, advertising, packaging, display, fashion, “emancipated” sexuality, mass media and culture, and the proliferation of commodities multiplied the quantity of signs and spectacles, and produced a proliferation of sign-value. Henceforth, Baudrillard claims, commodities are not merely to be characterized by use-value and exchange value, as in Marx’s theory of the commodity, but sign-value — the expression and mark of style, prestige, luxury, power, and so on — becomes an increasingly important part of the commodity and consumption” - The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy²

At the time of when Baudrillard was writing, he was often associated with Marxism, but his ideas actually differed in a very fundamental way; he argued that consumption was the “beating heart” of our capitalist system, whereas Marx argued that this beating heart was production. In his later works, Baudrillard openly rejected Marxism completely.

Marx probably would’ve argued that the two key ways that something got its value were its functional value and exchange value. The functional value of an item is its use value. For example, the functional value of a microwave is how well it heats up food. The exchange value of an item is its economic value. The exchange value of a microwave is how much it costs at the store.

Baudrillard, on the other hand, argued that objects predominantly got their value through sign value and symbolic value. The sign value of an item is explained above, and the symbolic value is the value which an item gets due to its relation to other items. For example, a special pair of sunglasses given to someone for their 16th birthday is an example of something that may have symbolic value.

As another example, these Louis Vuitton Air Force 1 Shoes have the same functional value as any other pair of sneakers, that is to say, that they protect my feet as any other pair of shoes would. Although they are not different in terms of “usefulness”, the prestige associated with them is what makes them so pricey. Many factors, including the brand, the designer, sometimes the price themselves, all convey a social message when an individual wears them. This is precisely what Baudrillard would refer to as sign value; the value an object holds not due to its “usefulness” or any other factor, but due to the social status (prestige) it grants the owner. These shoes are an extreme example, but Baudrillard would argue that sign value is a key driver behind all of our purchases, even if we don’t realize it.

Baudrillard went on to expand upon this idea of sign value within his work, Simulacra and Simulation³, in which he argued that society has replaced reality as we know it with symbols and signs, and that life itself is becoming a far-removed, simulation of reality. There are many aspects within his argument, but for example, he argued that the symbolism within culture and media help construct this simulation of reality. Also, it could be argued that our attraction to items with high sign value also contribute to constructing this simulated reality, as we no longer care about their usefulness, but rather, we care more about the social status that they grant us. This is problematic because this ‘value’ isn’t even created by us, instead, it’s value which is manufactured by corporations in order to control and catalyze consumption. Baudrillard argued that this simulated reality has become so prevalent and strong, that meaning itself has become meaningless by being ‘infinitely mutable’.

Herbert Marcuse

Another philosopher who is known for his commentary on consumerism is Herbert Marcuse⁴. Marcuse was a German-American philosopher, social critic, and political theorist. His work criticized capitalism, technology, communism, and pop culture, as he argued that all of these things represented modern-day forms of social control.

The “One-Dimensional” Man

In 1964, he wrote a book titled One-Dimensional Man⁵, a text which we’ll be exploring within this post.

Marcuse argued, within One-Dimensional Man, that consumerism is a form of social control. He argued that consumerism pushes forward the notion that we must buy our happiness and freedom through the purchasing of commodities. Our current economic system has resulted in us becoming extensions of the things we buy. Within his text, he states that “people recognize themselves in their commodities; they find their soul in their automobile, hi-fi set, split-level home, kitchen equipment”. Due to our freedom and happiness being placed within commodities, when we can’t afford to buy certain things, we end up in a state of ‘unfreedom’ or unhappiness. To get out of this unfreedom, we have to work more and more, and we find ourselves in a weird cycle. As stated by Marcuse;

“Consumers act irrationally by working more than they are required to in order to fulfill actual basic needs, by ignoring the psychologically destructive effects, by ignoring the waste and environmental damage it causes, and by searching for social connection through material items.”

According to Marcuse, consumerism turns us into “one-dimensional” people who live in a “one-dimensional” world, and we find our identity, self-worth, happiness, and freedom in the purchasing of things.

The problem with us finding our freedom and happiness within commodities is that our attraction to things isn’t even our own doing. Our attraction towards certain things are heavily influenced by corporations, through tools such as advertising and other economic instruments. This means that the things we seek meaning, freedom, and identity in, aren’t even a genuine nor true reflection of us.

If we find our freedom and happiness within commodities, and we endlessly pursue purchasing them, it is only natural that the creation of newer, better, and faster products is required. This non-stop creation of new products fuels the economy and also fuels our motivation to work more. Due to us being a cog within this consumerist machine, we’re blinded by always looking to buy the next ‘great’ thing, and we eventually lose touch with our humanity and who we truly are as individuals.

Marcuse’s idea that commodities are extensions of our minds and bodies is eerily similar to Baudrillard’s concept of sign value; the items we buy are a reflection of us and a part of us. They grant us social status and convey social messages without us even having to talk, and they help build our identity and a sense of happiness. The problematic part of this is the following; what we deem to be “valuable” and what we get our self-identity, freedom, and happiness from, doesn’t even truly come from us! It’s value that’s manufactured by corporations who want to catalyze consumption. This is probably why we can’t attain true “happiness” or fulfillment from material objects, and why the feeling of euphoria we get from buying something new is often short-lived; because our yearning for a specific object didn’t truly come from our genuine selves, it was manufactured.

My personal take away from both of these thinkers is that it's incredibly important to remain connected to who we genuinely are as individuals. The ability to express ourselves through clothing, art, and other stylistic choices has existed for a very long time, and there’s nothing wrong with this. I think the problem lies within things which we deem to be ‘valuable’ or an expression of ourselves, when in reality, it doesn’t truly stem from us and is instead influenced by corporations or other external influences. When we have an artificial attraction towards something, regardless of whether this artificial attraction is manufactured through advertising, the social status of the item, or anything else, it will always lead to unhappiness because it isn’t a genuine reflection of us. In a way, we’re sort of tricked, and I think it’s super important to remain in touch with who we are as individuals because it allows our conception of ‘value’ and what we’re drawn towards to be an accurate reflection of ourselves.

To put it simply; buy that new sweater not because a celebrity was advertising it, or because it allows you to be perceived in a certain way, or because it costs $1,000, but rather, because it’s a genuine reflection of you as an individual. I think if we take this approach towards our purchases and other life choices, it allows the fulfillment generated from these things to be a bit more longer-lived.

Thanks again for reading - see you next week!

---

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Baudrillard

2. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/baudrillard/#EarlWritSystObjeMirrProd

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacra_and_Simulation

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Marcuse

5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-Dimensional_Man