My response to Conscious consumerism is a lie. Here’s a better way to help save the world, by Alden Wicker, for Quartz.
I like much of what Alden had to say, but not all of it. As I read through her blog post, I couldn’t help but feel like she was leaving too much on the table; too much of an oversimplification.
If I had to take a stab at her thesis statement, it would be: “Individuals are too small to have an impact, so we must instead support organizations that advocate change.”
I am a consultant who focuses on sustainable business practice through waste prevention and reduction methods and agree that far more can be achieved through policy changes than individual action. That being said, we need individuals to be the advocates for the change they want to see in the world. If no one demands change, it will never come.
Here are selected statements from the article with my responses:
For example, friends are always asking me where to take their old clothes so that they are either effectively recycled or make it into the hands of people who need them. My answer? It doesn’t matter where you take them: It will always end up in the exact same overloaded waste stream, which may or may not eventually dump it in Haiti. This isn’t your fault for trying to do the right thing: It’s the fault of the relentless trend cycle of fast fashion, which is flooding the secondhand market with a glut of clothes that Americans don’t want at any price.
I agree with much of this statement. Clothes are so cheap to the point that they are disposable. If a newer style comes out, or a garment is in need of a minor repair, we toss it. Our old clothes and promotional shirts from races and one-time events have gotten to be so pervasive that Goodwill reports only reselling about 40% of the garments they receive locally. Everything else is sorted by quality, smashed into a hay bale style block, then shipped abroad to be turned into a rag or sold for pennies on the dollar. Buying thrifted clothes doesn’t support companies that are actually producing clothes responsibly, and often just makes the donor feel good about themselves; it supports their fast fashion.
What this statement fails to do is put any responsibility onto the consumer to make the right decision. Rather than donating a blouse that is still in good condition, the original owner she wear it down until it is no longer wearable. I, for example, just stitched up two pairs of jeans that had split at the crotch, which, as you all know, is a weak point in most pants. Yes, it took time do to this, but extended the life of those jeans, saving me money, and reducing my impact.
There’s also the issue of privilege. The sustainability movement has been charged with being elitist—and it most certainly is.
Yes, there is privilege associated with purchasing ethically made items, but it doesn’t take privilege to take care of and repair, as needed, the items that we do have. If anything, it is that privilege that makes us feel justified in over-consuming. Donating an old item in usable condition to make way for something new is both privileged and irresponsible.
Take plastic water bottles, for example. Plastic, as most of us now know, is made from petroleum that takes hundreds of years—or maybe even a thousand—to biodegrade (scarily, we’re not really sure yet). Shipping bottled water from Fiji to New York City is also an emission-heavy process. And yet, despite the indisputable facts and the consistent campaigning by nonprofits, journalists, and activists to urge consumers to carry reusable water bottles, bottled water consumption has continued to rise—even though it costs up to 2,000 times more than tap water.
How is this the fault of Capitalism? Yes, many people are mislead into purchasing bottled water. Logic and common sense, however, should indicate that bottled water is a false luxury good and waste of money. At what point do we take the burden off of “the Man” to make good decisions and place it back where it belongs, in the hands of individuals?
We’re working ever-longer hours, which leaves little time for sitting down to home-cooked meals, much less sewing, mending, and fixing our possessions.
This is a self-fulfilling prophecy. We work more hours to buy more stuff. I know from experience that consuming less is a far more effective strategy than earning morning.
Instead of buying expensive organic sheets, donate that money to organizations that are fighting to keep agricultural runoff out of our rivers.
My background is in supply chain management, which is a process-based philosophy. I agree with Alden that too much decision-making is left to the consumer, when it is already too late. Supply chain experts, instead, believe that a broken foundation leads to bad results. That being said, writing off the consumer isn’t good either. Trying to convince someone who only consumes organic products that they should purchase non-organic items instead so that they have more money to donate, is like sharing with a vegan the benefits of eating grass-fed beef.
Alden’s entire post is available here:
Please comment with your thoughts? I am curious to know your take on this. Am I missing the mark?
“This is a self-fulfilling prophecy. We work more hours to buy more stuff. I know from experience that consuming less is a far more effective strategy than earning morning.”
I’m not so sure about that one. I feel like that is a pretty intense oversimplification?
A lot of people are working more than one job and are barely making ends meet. My neighbor drives a school bus and spends all of her available hours after that working at the local grocery store. It’s not a choice she’s making to fuel her consumption of goods. It’s just life for her. It’s the only way she can eat and pay her rent?
I think I didn’t read your comment correctly the first time I saw it which is why I hadn’t responded.
We need to simultaneously consume consciously and advocate for the changes we want to see. It isn’t enough to just donate money to charity and call it a day. We do vote with our dollars, so doing our best to buy items that are durable and long-lasting is very important too. Often times people with the least amount of money do in fact have the smallest impact because they test to spend less and keep items in service much longer than typical consumers.
Thanks for your comment.
I like your stand on this. Conscious consumerism is a lie if we pretend it will be enough to engage into the ecological transition. I don’t like how Alden shaped her article, it is easy to take it as a “whatever I’ll do there will be no impact so I may as well not do anything at all”. Sustainable consumption is necessary, especially if it minds buying less and more local. But it has to go hand in hand with political engagement and a reorientation of our money towards funds and banks that support the transition.
I agree with everything you have written. I experience dejection at times, as I think about how little of an actual impact I can make, as hard as I try to be responsible with my buying/consuming choices. But it’s the best I can do, and I am always looking to improve.
I think my parents’ generation that lived in India practised frugality, and I try to emulate them in realistic ways myself. That is responsible consumerism, and there is nothing remotely elitist about it.
I agree that Conscious Consumerism isn’t enough on its own, and it needs both collective activism and individual effort. I would have liked it if you had mentioned utilizing Goodwill to supply needs when repairing and refusing is not an option. As the parent of growing children, Goodwill has always been an excellent resource for supplying “new” materials in a situation where alteration is not an effective option.
I’m surprised by your response to Alden’s article. Having read her article to the end, my understanding of her thesis is this: {Conscious consumerism is not enough to make the changes we wish to see in this world. Instead of only buying organic goods, let’s make our voices heard and tell our politicians and corporate leaders to change the way businesses do business.} What I read in her article is that – yes – we should keep making sustainable purchases, but that changing laws and public policy will be the only real way to make significant changes for the long-term. These are my words, not hers. After reading her article, I realized I had previously been brainwashed to think that conscious consumerism was the ONLY way to a sustainable lifestyle. It’s like a veil was lifted and now I can see the bigger picture of advocacy and politics. So, I feel like her article is a really nice eye-opener for those of us who were thinking too narrowly about zero waste and sustainable living.
Hi Tammy,
Thanks for your comment. I haven’t re-read her article as I write this response, so just wanted to preface with that. I think the issue I had with it, is it made me feel like it was telling people that conscious consumerism isn’t good enough, so you should do nothing instead.
It sounds like you interpreted it differently, so I may have just misunderstood her goal for it. I haven’t read any of other posts for comparison.
Jonathan
Hi Jonathan, I just read both Alden’s article and yours, and enjoyed them both. I’m writing today because my husband and I have a non profit company in South Africa, Tho Omni Foundation, for which we publish a free quarterly online magazine. One of our sections is on conscious economy, and we’re always looking for good articles to publish. I am asking permission to use your article (I will also ask Alden’s permission) for our next issue set to publish July 1, 2020. As the magazine is free and we are a fledgling non-profit, we cannot pay, but we do give full attribution and promotion in the way of links and author info. Here’s our last issue for a look: https://www.theomnifoundation.com/post/omni-vision-issue-4
Leah, yes, please feel free to reprint my post. Thanks for checking with me. Jonathan
Thanks so much! Cheers!