Consumed:HowMarketsCorruptChildren,InfantilizeAdults, andSwallowCitizensWhole
BenjaminR.Barber
NewYork:W.W.Norton,2007,406pp.
BenjaminBarber’s Consumed:HowMarketsCorruptChildren,InfantilizeAdults,andSwallowCitizensWhole arguesthatever-expanding capitalistcommercialculturetaintseverything,marginalizingfamily life, religiouslife,andciviclife,andreducingcitizenstomereconsumers whoseprivatemarketchoicesgivethemwhattheywant,butfailtogive themwhattheywanttowant:aBenjaminBarber-style “strong” democracyinwhichwemayneedtobe “forcedtobefree.”
Theargumentof Consumed reststhefalseassumptionthatcapitalism, initscontemporaryincarnation,isinsomesenseoverproductive. “Too manyunprofitableproductschasetoofewconsumers,toomanyofwhom mustbeprodded,pushed,andcajoledintoconsumption,” Barberwrites, citingjournalistWilliamGreider’s OneWorld,ReadyorNot (p.45). Barberaccusesboostersofdynamic,free-marketeconomiesashaving
failedtograspthatthemoderneconomydecreasinglymanufactures goodstomeet “realneeds” andincreasinglymanufactures “needsto addressandabsorbthecommodityandservicesurplusesofoverproduction.” (p.45)
HowBarberknowsthistobefact whichwouldbethebiggestsocial scientificscoopofthecentury islefttothereadertopiecetogether fromBarber’shand-wavingassertionsandhyperventilatinganecdotes.Of course,awell-confirmedpropositionineconomicsknownasSay’sLaw tellsusthatinaregimeoffreelymovingpricesandcapital,long-run overproductionisexceedinglyimprobable,ifnotliterallyimpossible.
Barber,whodoesnotappeartounderstandhowthemarketshecriticizesactuallyfunction,probablydoesnotintendtosaythatgoodsare rollingoffthelinesimplytorustinwarehouses.Theproblem,ashesees it,isthatwe are buyingallthisstuff.Barberevidentlymeanstoassert whatwemightcallthe “moralizedoverproduction” thesis.Themoralized overproductionthesisneednotimplythatSay’sLawisbeingviolated onadailybasis,orisabouttobe.Themoralizedoverproductionthesis insteadstatesthatcapitalismisproducing,andconsumersareinfact consuming,goodsandservicesthat oughtnot tobeeitherproduced orconsumed.Capitalismproducestoomuchjunkthatwedon’treally need
ThemoralizedoverproductionthesisisthefoundationofBarber’s claimthat,atsomepointinthepast, “productivist” capitalism,whichset aboutmeetingauthenticneeds,madeatransitionto “consumerist” capitalism,whichinducesandsatisfiesfakeneeds.Barber,settinghimselfup asalatter-dayMaxWeber,introducestheideathatcontemporarycapitalismcreatesandreinforcesan “infantilistethos” responsibleforthe “dumbingdownofgoodsandshoppers” andthe “targetingofchildrenas consumersinamarketwherethereareneverenoughshoppers” (p.5). Infantilization “servescapitalistconsumerismdirectlybynurturingacultureofimpetuousconsumptionnecessarytosellingpuerilegoodsina developedworldthathasfewgenuineneeds” (p.81).
Barberclaimsthatthisisnotfalseconsciousness,butmerely “limited consciousness” thatcauses “civicschizophrenia,” adivisionbetweenwhat wewantandwhatwe “wanttowant.”
Weactuallydowantwhatweareallowedtochooseprivately.Butwe arenonethelessworseoffandhavelesslibertydespitehavingmore privatechoices,sincethosechoicesareinadomainwherethereal decisionsarenotbeingtaken.Wewantwhatwewantprivately,butwe wantevenmoretobeabletochoosethepublicagendathatdetermines whatourprivatechoiceswillbe[p.141].
Thatis,whatwe really wantisanew “democraticsovereigntytomoderatemarketanarchyandmarketmonopoloy,” or “newformsofglobal civicgovernance ” tobattle “ puerility,marketchaos,andunrewardingprivatefreedom” (pp.338–39).
BOOK REVIEWS
Thisraisesahostofquestions,noneofwhichBarberanswers.Whatis histheoryofneeds?Howdoyoutellthedifferencebetweenanauthentic humanneedandaninventedone?Whenexactlydidthetransitionfrom productivisttoconsumeristcapitalismtakeplace?Barberindicatesthat oneoftheintermediatephasesofcapitalism, “managerialcapitalism,” tookusthroughthe1960s.Whatyearwasthesweetspotforauthentic consumption,whencapitalismgaveusallthatweneededandlittlewe didn’t?Barber’sclaimsabouttransitionsinthenatureofcapitalismappeartobecompletelyarbitrary.
Takejustoneexampleofarecentdramaticadvanceinwell-being. AccordingtotheNobel-Prize-winningeconomichistorianRobert Fogel, “Studiesofchangesinfunctionallimitationsamongpersonswho havereachedage65sincetheearly1980sindicatethatsuchlimitations declinedatanacceleratingrateduringthebalanceofthe1980sand 1990s.”1 Didthesepeoplenotreally need tohavefewerfunctionallimitationsinoldage?DoesBarberthinkthetechnologicalinnovationsresponsiblehavenothingtodowithcapitalism?
Barberclaimsthatnotonlyismoderncapitalismnolongersatisfying realneeds,butissomesensemakingusworseoff.Themodernconsumer,Barberwrites, “islessthehappysensualistthanthecompulsive masturbator,areluctantaddictworkingathimselfwithlittlepleasure, encouragedinhislaborbyanethicofinfantilizationthatreleaseshimto anindulgencehecannotaltogetherwelcome” (p.51).Notaprettypicture.But,again,Barberissimplymakingthingsup.
Almosteveryindicatorofhumanwell-beinghasimpovedsince1970. ContrarytothedatedpassageBarbertakesfromRobertLane’s TheLoss ofHappinessinMarketDemocracies,averageself-reportedhappiness levelshaveinfactincreasedintheUnitedStatesandthemainnationsof theEuropeanUnion.Anevenbettermeasure, “HappyLifeYears,” developedbysociologistRuutVeenhoven,showsthatpeoplegenerallyare livinghappilylonger and especially inadvancedcapitalistcountries. Thestrongestpredictorsofahighscoreonthehappylifeyearsindexis GDPperhead,economicfreedom,andpluralistictolerance.TheUN’s HumanDevelopmentindex,whichattemptstooperationalizeAmartya Sencapabilitiestheoryofwell-being,showssomeoftheworld’smost commercial,advertising-saturatedcultures includingtheUnitedStates andJapan inthetopten.ThetrendinsuicideisdownintheUnited Stateshasbeeninsteadydeclineformanydecades.Peoplecontinueto livelonger.Peoplecontinuetogettaller,asigngoodofnutritionand physicalrobustness.Therealmaterialstandardoflivingoftheleast well-offinconsumersocietiesisleapsandboundsabovewhatitwas30 yearsago.
1TheEscapefromHungerandPrematureDeath,1700–2100 (NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,2004),p.110.
Ifcapitalismhasstoppedmeetingrealneeds,weshouldnotseeimprovementinalmosteveryindicatorofwell-beingincapitalistnations. Butwedo.Ihavenodoubtthatmanyofusconsumelotsofthingsthat Barberdisapprovesof andhavingreadthisbook,Ihaveaverygood senseofwhichthingsthoseare butthereisnothingtobesaidinfavor ofthemoralizedoverproductiontheoryintheabsenceofatheoryof needs,andevidencethatourcurrentpatternsofconsumptionarenot meetingrealneeds.
Barber’simpliedtheoryofwell-beingcentersonanotionofthickcivic anddemocraticparticipationstraightoutofRousseau.Again: “Wewant whatwewantprivately,butwewantevenmoretobeabletochoosethe publicagendathatdetermineswhatourprivatechoiceswillbe.” But Barberfailstoprovideanyevidencethatmostpeopleinfactdowantthis, orthatpeoplewholiveinplaceswheremarketsaremoreheavilyregulatedbydemocraticchoicesareanybetteroff.
WhenBarberwrites, “Wearedividedwithinourselves,bywhatwe wantandwhatwewanttowant.Whatwewantisusuallyprivate,whatwe wanttowantisfrequentlypublic” (p.136),heissimplyconfused.Iwant aclimateofliberty.That’safirstorderdesireforapublicgood.AndIalso “wanttowant” toexercisethisafternoon,eventhoughI’mfeelinglazy. That’sasecondorderdesireforsomethingprivate.IfIamfrustratedby thelackofliberty(inthesamewaythatBarberisfrustratedbythelack ofcoerceddemocraticdeliberation),itmaybesimplythatotherswantit lessthanIdo.Howdoesithelptosaythat,althoughtheydon’twantwhat Ido,they “wanttowant” it?Or,ifeveryonewouldlikebothlowertaxes and atax-financedsubsidyfortheirsectoroftheeconomy,chancesare oneofthosedesiresisgoingtobefrustratedformosteverybody.It illuminatesnothingtobetoldthatweall “wantedtowant” lowertaxes, butfrustratedourselvesbyseekingsubsidies.Wesimplywantedboth.
Barberinplacesseemstogropeforthepointthatindividualchoices canproducenegativeexternalitiesandthattherearesuchthingsas collectiveactionproblems.Well,yes.Buthedoesnotavailhimselfofthe vastliteratureavailableonthistopic,oronthetopicofthereliability of mechanismsofdemocraticchoiceinamelioratingnegativeexternalities andprovidingpublicgoods.Hesimplychargesahead,assuminghis brandof “strongdemocracy” asacure-all,brandishingpreciselythe conceptionofpositivelibertythatIsaiahBerlinwarnedusagainst.
Barber’sheroRousseauequatedfreedomwithself-rule,andself-rule withobediencetothe “generalwill.” Thegeneralwillcanbeindependent of,andisoftenbeatoddswith,theindividualwill,asindividualsare oftendeludedastotheirowninterests.That’swhatBarbermeanswhen hesays:
Contrarytointuition,byconstrainingchoiceintheprivatesector,we canactuallyfacilitatethesenseoflibertywefeel.Thismayexplainthe paradoxicalphraseRousseauusedtocapturehiscrucialconceptionof publicliberty – thatwecanactuallybe “forcedtobefree” [p.142].
Maybeittakestheedgeoffwhenyou’reshovingsomethingdownsomeone’sthroattosaythatyouaregivingthemwhattheywantedtowant,but Idoubtit.Attheheartof Consumed isastrong,comprehensiveconceptionofthehumangoodthatcentersonacertainkindofidealofsocial embeddenessandcollectivechoice aconceptionmostofusdonot share.Barberseemstodislikeconsumercapitalismsomuchbecauseitis soatoddswiththeidealsthatmoves him.Ifhisargumentisgoingtobe persuasive,thoseidealsneedtomoveustoo,butBarberistoobusy mugging,skylarking,andrelentlesslyrepeatinghimselftogiveskeptical readersreasontoseetheappealinhismoralvision.
ThesamegoesfortheempiricalstoryBarbertells. Consumed isabook teemingwithfactoids,butstarvedofdata.OnewouldnotsaythatBarber “marshallsevidence” tothedefenseofhisposition.Forinstance,someoneshouldtellhimthatgung-hoadvertisingexecutivesadvertisingthe effectivenessofadvertisingisnotinfactthebestevidenceoftheeffectivenessofadvertising.Theargumentof Consumed isabarrageofsmall factstenuouslyconnectedbyundermotivatedpettheoriesexhumedfrom thegraveyardof20thcenturysocialtheory Freud,Marcuse,Adorno, Dewey whichatbestadduptoavagueimpressionthattheremaybe someevidencethatsupportsthethesis.
Inanincreasinglycomplexandperplexingworld,big-thinkbooksthat attempttocomprehendandgivemeaningtothisdizzyingwelteraremost welcome.However,Barber’ssynthesismayleavereadersunderstanding ratherlessaboutcommercialcapitalismthanwhentheystarted.
WillWilkinson CatoInstitute