We can’t buy our way out of here
Is there such a thing as an activist consumer?
By Bailey Anderson and Emma Burnett
Many academics in our circles believe there is a right way to consume, that through specific actions, from veganism to keep cups, we might be able to prevent the looming threat of environmental disaster. While at this stage, almost no one is arguing that individual action is the solution to climate change, it is still common to experience shame in consuming “the wrong way” and validation in consuming “the right way.” However, it seems to us that consumption based behaviour is more virtue signalling than it is effective activism[1].
We understand why the idea of a “right” and “wrong” way to consume is appealing. It creates an atmosphere where one can feel unburdened from some responsibility, while making small and relatively painless changes. Undoubtedly, some concerns, like greenhouse gas emissions, could be dramatically reduced if more individuals made behavioural changes[2],[3], and normative shifts do occur as more people make environmentally aware decisions. This is noticeable, for instance, in the eco-friendly product lines that have become widely available and easily found in large chain supermarkets.
However, activism involves concerted efforts to create meaningful social change. On the surface, ethical consumption may create such change, but at its root, a would-be activist’s control over daily decisions is limited by the options presented to them. One fundamental flaw in the ethical consumption ideal is consumer confusion. Research suggests that people are unable to easily differentiate between product labels designed to serve as signals of impact or origin[4], [5]. Greenwashing is difficult to distinguish from true values-based-production chains[6]. Consumer confusion means that, more often than not, it is difficult to make informed decisions, regardless of intent[7].
More important still is the fact that growth-based capitalist economic structures rely on ever increasing consumption, driving production efficiencies to maximise profit. This stands against one of fundamental pillars of environmentalism — the reduce component of the waste hierarchy. Under this model, even if all goods were produced using more sustainable or ethically rooted approaches, unfettered consumption may still result in the negative externalities we see today. Similarly, a pound spent on ‘green’ goods produced or owned by certain companies may continue to support institutions that cause staggering environmental and human harm.
Capitalist systems regard “social responsibility and self-interest as fundamentally compatible.”[8] The environmental problems that result from this incompatibility may be veiled by a market promise of an ethical choice that does not actually exist. Outside of small scale systems, some cooperatives and non-profit businesses, and a few social enterprise structures, industry that prioritises wellbeing over profit is rare. At the end of the day, profit is seen as necessary to avoid financial collapse, ignoring that this model facilitates environmental collapse.
Even the most well-intentioned consumption may never be effective activism — the act of consuming plays directly into the hands of the system. This suggests that the only airtight decision in reference to mass markets is one which refuses to engage with consumption at all — an utterly inaccessible option for most people, and one that carries its own disadvantages (e.g. some degree of social isolation). A functional move towards consumption patterns that are symbiotic with biodiversity and carbon emissions goals is likely to require significant changes to the ways in which we produce goods, along with motivations for production and consumption. It’s not just about buying better products, but buying less in general, changing our paradigm of growth, and acknowledging that markets will never be the drivers of this change.
We don’t intend to argue that effective activism has to be antagonistic or militant. There are countless opinions on how to be a good citizen in a time when “climate emergency” is the Oxford English Dictionary’s word of the year[9]. Relying on signalling and shame to highlight an activist identity, however, is setting us all up for failure.
Effective protest calls for targeted attacks on the parts of a system that are diseased. It must consider where power lies, and how to best demand change. In the way of all major paradigm shifts, this change will be led by individuals acting communally to change the rules, and demanding that those with power consider the broader ramifications of their actions. It is pointless, and hurtful, to blame the weak. This is why movements like Extinction Rebellion, Fridays for Future, and School Strikes for Climate are so powerful. They lay blame at the feet of those with systematic power, those who can make change, rather than calling out all individuals for their faults. They encourage us to rally within our communities, to combat the injustices of a system that is not designed to support us, while acknowledging that we have no choice but to participate in that system as it stands.
Calling out the shortcomings of others as a form of protest is a fallacy of modern activism (and, arguably, a bad habit we’ve reinforced through social media), as has been pointed out recently by Extinction Rebellion activists[10], along with former United States president Barack Obama[11]. It misses the point. The goal of activism, environmental or otherwise, is to create social change that benefits a community. Environmental changes are affecting the global community to a degree that is unparalleled in history. Being effective in our response to the threats that environmental change poses necessitates communication that surpasses social, political, and educational boundaries. It requires that we view the world as an interconnected community
If done carefully, personal consumption patterns may open doors to conversations that would be too difficult to engage with otherwise. However, the long game is about system change. Consumer choice simply cannot drive meaningful change against a barrage of misinformation, confusion, and competing interests. A quote often attributed to Marshall McLuhan comes to mind, “We don’t know who discovered water, but you can bet it wasn’t a fish.” It is unlikely that a solution to the threats of environmental change will be born from conversation limited to those who already see themselves as virtuous. We don’t know the solution to the current environmental crisis, but you can bet it won’t be found in righteous indignation. However insufficient our actions may feel, history teaches us to take to the streets, join local chapters of environmental movements, and petition those in power (or even join their ranks), but regardless of how you choose to rebel, centre on community, and you will always be more effective.
[1] A phrase believed to be popularised by James Bartholomew in the Spectator: Bartholomew, J. (2015, April 18). The awful rise of ‘virtue signalling’. The Spectator. Retrieved from https://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/04/hating-the-daily-mail-is-a-substitute-for-doing-good/
[2] For instance a shift to veganism e.g. Emery, I. (2018). Without animals, US farmers would reduce feed crop production. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(8), E1703. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1720760115
[3] White, R. R., & Hall, M. B. (2017). Nutritional and greenhouse gas impacts of removing animals from US agriculture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(48), E10301. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1707322114
[4] Moon, S.-J., Costello, J. P., & Koo, D.-M. (2017). The impact of consumer confusion from eco-labels on negative WOM, distrust, and dissatisfaction. International Journal of Advertising, 36(2), 246–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2016.1158223
[5] Langer, A., Eisend, M., Ku?, A., 2007. The Impact of Eco-Labels on Consumers: Less Information, More Confusion? ACR European Advances E-08.
[6] Delmas, M. A., & Burbano, V. C. (2011). The Drivers of Greenwashing. California Management Review, 54(1), 64–87. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2011.54.1.64
[7] See also writings on bounded rationality e.g., Kahneman, D., 2003. Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics. The American Economic Review 93, 1449–1475.
[8] Carrington, M. J., Zwick, D., & Neville, B. (2016). The ideology of the ethical consumption gap. Marketing Theory, 16(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593115595674. pp. 28
[9] Some of our favourites: Sinclair, T. (2019, July 19). The Real Problem of Hypocrisy for Extinction Rebellion. Medium. Retrieved from https://medium.com/extinction-rebellion/the-real-problem-of-hypocrisy-for-extinction-rebellion-4a6851dcdeb7; Pottinger, L. (2017). Planting the seeds of a quiet activism. Area, 49(2), 215–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12318
[10] Ibid.
[11] Rueb, E. S., & Taylor, D. B. (2019, October 31). Obama on Call-Out Culture: ‘That’s Not Activism’. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/31/us/politics/obama-woke-cancel-culture.html
Originally published in Oxford Magazine, Climate Change Special Issue, №414, Eight Week, Michaelmas Term, 2019.
