#ethical consumerism

The Promise and Contradictions of Ethical Consumerism by Nicki Lisa Cole
Ethical capitalism and consumerism. Do they represent moves toward real egalitarian change for the poor and workers of the world? Do they suggest hope for a long-term livable planet? Or are they merely symbolic concessions to appease critiques of a deeply problematic system of global production and consumption?

Suddenly I saw around me a world of goods framed as the “right” choice for social and environmental reasons. Whether it was sweatshop free-clothing, Fair Trade or organic food products, sustainably sourced wood, “green” cleaning products and cosmetics, or hybrid vehicles, the message was the same: by buying this product, you are changing the world for the better. The pervasiveness of this message struck me as an adaptation of the ideological foundation of capitalism that seemed a direct response to the rising popular awareness of the environmental and social problems associated with global capitalism.

It seems then that at its heart, ethical consumption is premised on the recognition of problems associated with global capitalism (at least implicitly), and for this reason it can be said that as a social phenomenon it expresses a critical orientation and awareness. It is the manifestation of anxiety on the part of consumers over how the system of global capitalism works, and the role that they play within it. Yet participants stop short of realizing this critique for what it is–a condemnation of a system. Instead they focus on select bad actors and fault governments and greedy middlemen in producing nations for creating the conditions that exploit coffee producers and bind them within an impoverished existence.

While it seems that consumers harbor concern over the actions of corporations and the relations they cultivate with producers around the world, they also lack real knowledge of the sourcing models that bring coffee to their mouths. In this light, consumer concern manifests as well-intentioned reactionary purchasing. I see this as evidence of the successful commodification of morality. By embedding a narrative that features happy producers thriving due to the choices of consumers, the specialty coffee industry has successfully created a market for morality. Together the discourse and imagery that surrounds the product functions as a sign (in the Saussurian sense (1916)) of ethical relations of trade, which signals to the consumer that all is well and they have done the right thing. By foregrounding the image and narrative of the laborer the industry has convinced consumers that they do not need to worry about the laborer. This is a more gripping form of Marx’s commodity fetishism (1978), since the relations and real conditions of production remain obscured by ethical coffee. The narrative presented by it masquerades as a removal of the curtain, but in fact it is the same curtain painted over with an enchanting scene.

So where is the hope in this situation? Hope lies in the unease, the anxiety, and the discomfort that pushes consumers to harbor suspicions of the relations and conditions of production. But, if we are to make moves toward real social change and global economic justice, we must embrace our consumer anxieties, not assuage them through the self-gratifying channels of consumption. To the extent that we opt for the simple fix of ethical consumption we fail to actually confront the root of the problem that causes these anxieties–the system of capitalism. Instead, we reproduce the very thing that troubles us. We must confront and marinate in our anxieties, allow them to trouble us, and then use them as motive to engage in what Marcuse (1964) called “negative thinking”–the unthinking of the norms that limit the possibilities for what social and economic relations can look like. Only then can we imagine social justice into being.

This can easily be extrapolated to why people buy into the humane myth. Companies are commodifying compassion by constraining the moral issue within the framework of consumerism. If you’re a compassionate and moral person, would you want to buy “free-range, humanely killed” animals or factory farmed animals? The concept of not buying animals is removed from the question entirely because consumerism is framed as the only active decision with the possibility of changing the world.

Nicki writes, “Ethical coffee is framed as a response to bad conditions and unmet needs in coffee growing communities, and consumers and coffee companies are positioned as ethical actors who help producers.” Change a few words and we get, “Humane slaughter is framed as a response to bad conditions and unmet needs in animal agriculture and factory farming, and consumers and companies like Whole Foods are positioned as ethical actors who help animals.” The marketing around ethical coffee and “ethical meat” is nearly the same as well. Pictures of happy cows and happy chickens frolicking in green pastures with white clouds and a blue sky in the background – surely these animals are eager and willing to give their lives so that humans can eat their bodies, just as coffee workers are eager and willing to work to provide humans with specialty coffee.

Companies and farms that promote “humane slaughter” thrive in this market of morality. They frame animal wellbeing as a product of consumer choices. By foregrounding the image of “happy animals”, they allow consumers to stop questioning the morality of eating animals. The truth is that labels mean nothing. And even if they did, there is no ethical justification for prematurely ending the life of another being, no matter how “happy” they were, or how “painless” their death is.

How to Uphold White Supremacy by Focusing on Diversity and Inclusionby Kẏra
Liberalism’s inherent racism.

[…] liberalism: the egalitarian principle which works to ignore and erase difference rather than to undo oppression. It strives for a post-feminist, post-queer, post-racial or racially colorblind world. Liberalism as an ideology deems equal rights and equal treatment as a higher priority than  material justice, or as an effective means towards  it. Its presumptions of equality are false, as individualist equality may be written into law and policy while material inequality thrives. It effectively abstracts and obscures power dynamics along lines of race, class, and gender. The difference between material justice and liberalism is the difference between actually making reparations for a long history of racism and countries like Austria, Finland, Hungary, France, and now Sweden removing all mentions of “race” from their legislation.

Liberalism is not the opposite of conservatism on a left-right political spectrum, but a set of values that informs various other political ideologies including conservatism and libertarianism. Even the most popular manifestations of feminism and radical political thought (anarchism, communism, and socialism) are their most liberal forms. You can recognize the influence of liberalism in any political philosophy or practice that ,  consciously or not ,  focuses on individual equality before social power. What is it that says that ending racism means setting aside our differences and finding commonality? Liberalism. What is it that says that we need love to bring us together and to end the hate which drives us apart? Liberalism. What is it that says to choose unity over disunion? Liberalism. What is it that says racism/sexism/sizeism hurts everyone? Liberalism.

The toxic effects of liberalism are clear in diversity advocacy and its language. […] diversity emphasizes the pragmatic benefits to morale, productivity, and profits. Diversity is the practice of mixing together different bodies within a common organization, and is a prime resource to be capitalized upon by businesses and organizations that are white owned and/or operated. Diversity still benefits those in power by taking advantage of the various experiences and vantage points of different racial/gender/sexual backgrounds. Rather than respecting difference and redistributing power based on it, diversity only “celebrates” difference in order to exploit multiculturalism for its economic value.

When we talk about diversity and inclusion, we necessarily position marginalized groups as naturally needing to assimilate into dominant ones, rather than to undermine said structures of domination. Yes, we need jobs; we need education; we need to access various resources. What we don’t need is to relegate ourselves to the position of depending on someone else to offer us inclusion and access to those resources. Inclusion is something they must give, but our liberation is something we will take.

This reminds me of The Social Justice Advocate’s Handbook: A Guide to Gender by Sam Killermann, the creator of the genderbread person, which talks about – in a more colloquial manner – the difference between equality and equity.

There’s also Eli Erlick’s recent article, Why Equality Is Toxic to the Transgender Movement, which has a great illustration on why advocating for equality instead of equity is harmful. She writes, “Hate crime laws are framed as initiatives that will end attacks on transgender people, making them ‘equally’ protected under the law. In reality, this legislation is another cisgender issue pushed by neoliberal politicians to further expand prisons and prevent real change. Hate crime legislation does nothing to protect trans people. Instead, it only increases sentencing for offenders. Is doubling a 7-year sentence going to deter crime? Statistically, the answer is no. Hate crime laws do not look at the roots of the problem, including systemic racism and transphobia. Individualizing the problem by sending one person to prison does very little for our community as a whole and does not work within a restorative justice framework. People who have committed these acts can be educated along with the public on transgender issues, which will actually stop the violence. This is not to mention many people incorrectly think anti-transgender victimization has ended when hate crime legislation has passed — and then proceed to ignore the perpetual violence we still face.”

Eli also mentions the same problem that Hana did in their interview on the intersections between queer human and non-human animal liberation, where a focus on the similarities between minority groups and the majority ends up harming those most marginalized:

Large, cisgender-run LGBT organizations attempt to operate under a “we’re just like you” model to incorporate us into these industries, which is not only inaccurate, but also diminutive to trans culture. We are not “equal” or “the same” as cisgender people. Like every marginalized community, we have unique needs and identities that equality measures do not take into consideration.

Looping back to A Guide to Gender, this is an example of where the Golden Rule fails. When we focus on “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”, we lose sight of other people’s unique needs and identities that we do not have. Instead, we need the Platinum Rule: “do unto others as they would have done unto them”.