And How!
An Attempt to Explore the Moral Imperative to Consume
In an attempt to highlight how capitalism has infiltrated our society, and to examine how we the worth of individuals to be influenced by their consumption and use of capital, I decided to perform a simple social disruption and examine its effects. In this disruption, I went to places of business where consumption is either an expected part of the activity (namely restaurants, bars, bookstores, etc.) as well as those where consumption is the entire purpose of visit (in this specific instance, grocery stores).
Before starting, I believed that the response I would elicit would be one of gradual hostility from my hosts; that by refusing to consume in places of consumption, I would be shunned à la neoliberal moral-capitalistic shaming by the establishment until my behavior improved.
With my professors blessing, my handy Moleskine® notebook, and my favorite Zebra® F402 pen, I set off to find my proof.
I failed.
In all my outings, I found my attempts to draw out a response from the establishment frustratingly rebutted. No matter how long how long I wandered the shelves of the local grocery store, staked claim to the comfortable chair at the bookstore, or occupied a bar-stool at the local watering hole, no reaction or interaction I experienced from my hosts could be construed as anything approaching hostile. In the case of locations with one-on-one personal interaction, the host simply requested I reach out when I needed assistance, and left me alone.
However, as quoted by Doyle in Guest Stars “Sometimes as an artist you have to fail” (8), and in failure, I found a new lens through which to examine my subject: not through shaming from the establishment, but through neoliberal self-policing from myself and my peers. The authority does not correct us, rather, the authority instills in us a sense of capitalist right-and-wrong, and that internal sense leads us to correct each other and ourselves.
As I wandered the aisles in my local Meijer®, listlessly examining items I had no intention of purchasing, I would occasionally interact with the employees who would politely inquire if I needed any help, and then happily wander away when refused. Although the interactions were consistently pleasant, I felt a growing unease at what I was doing, as if I were doing wrong; I felt compelled to purchase or leave. As quoted by Ouellette, the authority had ‘[translated] the goals of “Authorities” in to the “choices and commitments of [the individual]’ (234); that is, society conditions me to consume, and by refusing that conditioning, attempt self-correction. Hayes explains this conditioning as a mechanism for neoliberal ideals to create ‘self-disciplining subjects’ through which idealized citizens are ‘guide[d] and shape[d]’ (Ouellette, 234).
Although I had adopted this position for our in-class discussion, arguing that Sheindlins over-the-top performance, moral shaming, and reduction of arguments to their black-and-white simplified selves were not for the effect on the participants in the litigation, rather they were carefully sculpted to instill similar neoliberal values in home viewers, I had not considered extending that position to capitalistic behavoir. By refusing my ‘moral responsibility’ to be a good consumer, I had become (if only judged by myself and only in this situation) a ‘societal menace,’ worthy of being judged (Ouellette, 243).
Further adapting my social experiment, the next outing was not to loiter alone but rather in a small group, allowing me to see if capitalistic self-regulation extended to group dynamics; specifically, I was interested if Weber’s theory that ‘shame establishes the criterion for inclusion and exclusion by “promoting a model of social cohesion that works by excluding outsiders”’ extended to this capitalistic model (91). During an outing with a friend (hereafter referred to as ‘Bob’), I noted that failure to consume (again) resulted in no objectionable treatment from my host; however, Bob responded with first with concern, followed by dismissive and acrid humor, culminating in a noticeable degree of hostility. This was reminiscent of Weber’s description of shaming from friends of the subject in an attempt to ‘correct’ their behavior; to quote Weber (and paraphrase Bob):
“I’m embarrassed to be seen with [you]” (84).
Although the subjects (consumer habits and feminism/ideal beauty standards) are unrelated in this scope, Bob was, due to his implied capitalistic mores, attempting to influence my behavior by ‘accelerate[ing] fears…of being judged’ (Weber, 88). When pressed on the reasoning for his growing annoyance, he proclaimed:
“I don’t know, it’s weird”
(with ‘it’ in this context to be my lack of consumption). This is similar to the class response to our viewing of Weiner: a sense of disquiet and judgement, without being able to state an explicit reason for why. To (anecdotally) quote a classmate from our discussion:
“What he did was disgusting, and I’m disgusted by it, and I’m disgusted by him.”
However, when pressed by the instructor for a reason for the moral judgement, the class could not provide a solid, logical reason for their shaming, only that he had behaved ‘wrongly.’ I believe these two separate situations show that just as moral behavior has been coded into our psyche, so has capitalistic behavior, with the consequences each presenting themselves as rejection of individuals displaying non-coded deviant behaviors.
Although my disturbance failed to elicit evidence for my original thesis, I’ve come to believe that the final result was far more interesting. As society has become increasing concerned with material wealth and possessions, have we coded ourselves to believe that capitalistic consumption is a moral imperative? Ouellette argued that our exposure to reality TV was ‘an active agent in [democracy’s] neoliberal transition’ (248); is it not possible, then, that our constant exposure to consumption culture through marketing campaigns, product placement, and good old fashioned advertisements is similarly reshaping our moral compasses? And if so, should (or even: can) we right the ship and attempt to address the constant barrage of capitalism that we face on a daily basis?
I won’t pretend to have the answers, or even that I’ve necessarily interpreted the circumstance correctly. I do know that my foray into non-consumption and the feelings of unease it prompted have stuck with me more than I would like to admit. I would invite the reader to take the opportunity to loiter themselves, to deny the societal requirements of public consumption, and see if they find themselves similarly discontented.
And if so, to perhaps join me in finding new avenues to loiter.
Works Cited
Doyle, Jennifer. “Guest Stars.” Frieze 22 July 2010: 8. Print.
Ouellette, L. J. “Take Responsibility for Yourself: Judge Judy and the Neoliberal Citizen” Remaking Television Culture 2nd edition, 2009: 223‐242. Print.
Rejected. Dir. Don Hertzfeldt. Perf. Don Hertzfeldt, Robert May and Jennifer Nyholm. 2000. Animated Short.
Weber, Brenda R. “Makeover TV Selfhood, citizenship, and celebrity”. North Carolina: Duke U Press, 2010: 81–126. Print.