Intruiging question—this reminds me of the very thought-provoking essay by Sarah Constanin defending individualism. I am not entirely sure what you mean by ‘steelman consumerism’ as it could refer to defending the concept’s usefulness or defending a more object-level claim about the harmfulness of over-consumption or certain types of consumption (or it could mean something I have not thought of)? I’ll try to address the first two briefly to the best of my ability.
As a descriptive concept, ‘consumerism’ serves a useful historical function in describing a change in the way people engaged in their consumptive habits around the 18th century. I think the core essence of this change is in two parts: (I) the scale of consumption and character of the things consumed; (1I) the relationship of identity to material consumer goods. The first relates to the undeniable fact that in some parts of the world, (eg, the developed west), a large proportion of the population has been able to engage in luxury spending. That is, buying things which do not contribute to basic living functions. Afaik, scholars do not suggest this is a change in human nature, but an observation that material plenty has enabled greater spending on luxury goods. In turn, this has led to consumption taking on a greater role in the economy and in the culture of society (eg, shopping mall becoming a centre of community planning). This leads to (II). Historians also suggest that around the 18th century to ‘consume’ took on a different role. Instead of being seen primarily in a negative light (eg, to extinguish, and as a part of the deadly sins), it took on a positive connotation of productivity and creativity. It became socially acceptable—and even advantageous—for large portions of the population to pursue consumption openly (conspicuous consumption) and with no other justification than fulfilling desires. In turn, this has led to a culture where consumption is encouraged in all parts of life; there are few moral limits on what you spend your money on; and people increasingly identify themselves, and their status, with their consumptive purchases. This is substantially different from the pre-18th century environment of highly moralised and restrictive consumption. Whether you think (I) and (II) are true—and potentially interesting—will shape your view on the usefulness of ‘consumerism’ as a general concept.
In terms of the object-level criticism of ‘consumerism’, several (not necessarily compatible) arguments can be made. Note that many of these involve positing a kind of lexical ordering of goods/life-pursuits which you may disagree with, and hence will find unpersuasive.
Although ‘consuming’ is not itself bad, one should try as hard as possible to avoid relying, fixating, or focusing on material goods. This is to pursue ‘higher-order’ ends like spirituality and personal virtues which a focus on material consumption can distract from. Represented historically by stoics, buddhists, and many other varieties of religious ascetics.
A kind of secular version of the argument above suggesting that ‘the most important things in life’ (family, friendship, personal virtues, adventure, spontaneity, etc) can be (A) acheived with little—though not a total absence of—material goods; and (B) often focusing on consuming above this threshold brings tradeoffs with these lexically superior things. For example, getting stuck in a ‘lifestyle trap’ to sustain a high level of consumption (two cars, big house w/ high mortage, private school for kids), but as a result doing an evil/boring job and ‘wasting’ your life. How do we determine these important things? One example is to look at deathbedregrets—most people don’t regret seeing their kids’ birthdays instead of working overtime to fund a bigger car. This theme is repeated in a variety of movies and literature—writers seem to believe that accruing large quantities of material goods is not a satisfying narrative payout (comapred to say, love or ‘the friends we made along the way’)
Obviously there are counterarguments such as (1) Why prioritise deathbed you over current you? What gives them epistemic priority? and (2) who are you to tell me ‘I am wasting my life!’, and who chooses what is important? Further, it may be some people are genuinely fulfilled by buying large quantities of material goods.
A response could be that (I) people often regret their lives in the moment, and consumerism has a way of trapping people in irrational—at least, according perhaps to a counterfactual version of themselves living a more fulfilling life—life paths; (2) There is no satisfying theoretical response to this. Parfit raises this problem with his ‘muzak and potatoes’ argument—that no quantity of pleasure from those items could outweigh the pleasure of Mozart’s music. That said, it may be that the proportion of those trapped, according to (I), is actually quite high (either because of consciously experienced lifestyle traps or a lack of awareness/access of/to other lifestyles). The problem then of consumption culture is that it misleads people into not fulfilling some idealised rational version of themselves’s values.
A creative argument (seen from the traditional right and the far left) that consumerist culture, defined above, makes it harder to produce great art/culture. The idea is that an excessive focus on mass-consumption, and profits from this, drives artists to make content for the lowest common denominator, and thus they no longer make ‘transcendent’ or ‘great’ art. This is where the term ‘selling out’ comes from, which is inextricable tied to consumerism. Naturally it also relates to how one assesses ‘great’ art (is there such a thing? There is at least new and innovative art which consumerism might hamper).
I should also note that many of these arguments also hinge on how one consumes. The wine-taster, for example, is apparently more morally appealing than the inveterate day-drinker. Similarly, their approach to comfort and convenience is complex. The more extreme view is that both these factors are effectively unnecessary for a good life (especially common amongst religions), and in fact distracting. The more moderate view is that they are valuable, but comfort and convenience above a certain point are (I) overrated, insofar as you get stuck on a hedonic treadmill, and (II) can prevent you experiencing other, valuable states (eg, going ‘out of your comfort zone’).
These are a few arguments, I’ve tried to focus on the ones I find most persuasive. Although I would like to reduce many of these to empirically testable propositions, I fear, in fact, the crux of the debate may hinge on how ‘elitest’ you are willing to be about ways of leading a fulfilling life.
(There are also political arguments along the lines of ‘it is bad for the environment’, or ‘it prevents a worker revolution by instilling fascination for trinkets etc’, but I feel they do not get to the heart of consumerism insofar as they are defined by their consequences, rather than the intrinsic ills of consuming as a primary end.)
“A creative argument (seen from the traditional right and the far left) that consumerist culture, defined above, makes it harder to produce great art/culture. The idea is that an excessive focus on mass-consumption, and profits from this, drives artists to make content for the lowest common denominator, and thus they no longer make ‘transcendent’ or ‘great’ art. This is where the term ‘selling out’ comes from, which is inextricable tied to consumerism. Naturally it also relates to how one assesses ‘great’ art (is there such a thing? There is at least new and innovative art which consumerism might hamper).”
This is something, as musician, I’ve been taking issue with, the claim of the “lowest common denominator“, as if it’s a bad thing. The reason being is that most creatives who complain about lack of originality don’t actually understand what not how originality works. Often to the point where, I’ve seen innovative art that was genuinely bad, but was accepted simply because it was anti-consumerist”. The issue is take is that art should appeal to the lowest common denominator for key reason, “Shared cultural connection”. How people connect to each other is often based on sharing tastes. This does not stop artists from being original as artists claim, while there will be obstacles at times, most artists are allowed to be original as long as they include that lowest comm denominator, in most cases, where they fail is that they lack respect for that principle. Then blame consumerism or capitalism, while not taking responsibility for the fact that the mainstream market likes things a certain way for good reasons. If art is to serve the world around it, art needs to respect the perspectives and tastes of the people to a good extent, while being able to challenge at times. Artists are not good understanding this, I too failed to get it years ago, until I began learning how bayside’s works as well as human nature. I want my music to unite people as much as I can get people to listen to it, so, I need to marry who I am to that “lowest common denominator”, this is how many greats have been successful when you dissect their work to see why so many people loved them. Most people bond over the “lowest common denominator” of that music. Motown was a machine in its own right, but they did good mechanising music, while bringing greatness to the process.
(I) overrated, insofar as you get stuck on a hedonic treadmill,
This is actually a good thing, primarily because such a mechanism is almost certainly key to how we avoid wireheading. In particular, it avoids the problem of RL agents inevitably learning to hack the reward, by always bringing it down to a set point of happiness and avoiding runaway happiness leading to wireheading.
Intruiging question—this reminds me of the very thought-provoking essay by Sarah Constanin defending individualism. I am not entirely sure what you mean by ‘steelman consumerism’ as it could refer to defending the concept’s usefulness or defending a more object-level claim about the harmfulness of over-consumption or certain types of consumption (or it could mean something I have not thought of)? I’ll try to address the first two briefly to the best of my ability.
As a descriptive concept, ‘consumerism’ serves a useful historical function in describing a change in the way people engaged in their consumptive habits around the 18th century. I think the core essence of this change is in two parts: (I) the scale of consumption and character of the things consumed; (1I) the relationship of identity to material consumer goods. The first relates to the undeniable fact that in some parts of the world, (eg, the developed west), a large proportion of the population has been able to engage in luxury spending. That is, buying things which do not contribute to basic living functions. Afaik, scholars do not suggest this is a change in human nature, but an observation that material plenty has enabled greater spending on luxury goods. In turn, this has led to consumption taking on a greater role in the economy and in the culture of society (eg, shopping mall becoming a centre of community planning). This leads to (II). Historians also suggest that around the 18th century to ‘consume’ took on a different role. Instead of being seen primarily in a negative light (eg, to extinguish, and as a part of the deadly sins), it took on a positive connotation of productivity and creativity. It became socially acceptable—and even advantageous—for large portions of the population to pursue consumption openly (conspicuous consumption) and with no other justification than fulfilling desires. In turn, this has led to a culture where consumption is encouraged in all parts of life; there are few moral limits on what you spend your money on; and people increasingly identify themselves, and their status, with their consumptive purchases. This is substantially different from the pre-18th century environment of highly moralised and restrictive consumption. Whether you think (I) and (II) are true—and potentially interesting—will shape your view on the usefulness of ‘consumerism’ as a general concept.
In terms of the object-level criticism of ‘consumerism’, several (not necessarily compatible) arguments can be made. Note that many of these involve positing a kind of lexical ordering of goods/life-pursuits which you may disagree with, and hence will find unpersuasive.
Although ‘consuming’ is not itself bad, one should try as hard as possible to avoid relying, fixating, or focusing on material goods. This is to pursue ‘higher-order’ ends like spirituality and personal virtues which a focus on material consumption can distract from. Represented historically by stoics, buddhists, and many other varieties of religious ascetics.
A kind of secular version of the argument above suggesting that ‘the most important things in life’ (family, friendship, personal virtues, adventure, spontaneity, etc) can be (A) acheived with little—though not a total absence of—material goods; and (B) often focusing on consuming above this threshold brings tradeoffs with these lexically superior things. For example, getting stuck in a ‘lifestyle trap’ to sustain a high level of consumption (two cars, big house w/ high mortage, private school for kids), but as a result doing an evil/boring job and ‘wasting’ your life. How do we determine these important things? One example is to look at deathbed regrets—most people don’t regret seeing their kids’ birthdays instead of working overtime to fund a bigger car. This theme is repeated in a variety of movies and literature—writers seem to believe that accruing large quantities of material goods is not a satisfying narrative payout (comapred to say, love or ‘the friends we made along the way’)
Obviously there are counterarguments such as (1) Why prioritise deathbed you over current you? What gives them epistemic priority? and (2) who are you to tell me ‘I am wasting my life!’, and who chooses what is important? Further, it may be some people are genuinely fulfilled by buying large quantities of material goods.
A response could be that (I) people often regret their lives in the moment, and consumerism has a way of trapping people in irrational—at least, according perhaps to a counterfactual version of themselves living a more fulfilling life—life paths; (2) There is no satisfying theoretical response to this. Parfit raises this problem with his ‘muzak and potatoes’ argument—that no quantity of pleasure from those items could outweigh the pleasure of Mozart’s music. That said, it may be that the proportion of those trapped, according to (I), is actually quite high (either because of consciously experienced lifestyle traps or a lack of awareness/access of/to other lifestyles). The problem then of consumption culture is that it misleads people into not fulfilling some idealised rational version of themselves’s values.
A creative argument (seen from the traditional right and the far left) that consumerist culture, defined above, makes it harder to produce great art/culture. The idea is that an excessive focus on mass-consumption, and profits from this, drives artists to make content for the lowest common denominator, and thus they no longer make ‘transcendent’ or ‘great’ art. This is where the term ‘selling out’ comes from, which is inextricable tied to consumerism. Naturally it also relates to how one assesses ‘great’ art (is there such a thing? There is at least new and innovative art which consumerism might hamper).
I should also note that many of these arguments also hinge on how one consumes. The wine-taster, for example, is apparently more morally appealing than the inveterate day-drinker. Similarly, their approach to comfort and convenience is complex. The more extreme view is that both these factors are effectively unnecessary for a good life (especially common amongst religions), and in fact distracting. The more moderate view is that they are valuable, but comfort and convenience above a certain point are (I) overrated, insofar as you get stuck on a hedonic treadmill, and (II) can prevent you experiencing other, valuable states (eg, going ‘out of your comfort zone’).
These are a few arguments, I’ve tried to focus on the ones I find most persuasive. Although I would like to reduce many of these to empirically testable propositions, I fear, in fact, the crux of the debate may hinge on how ‘elitest’ you are willing to be about ways of leading a fulfilling life.
(There are also political arguments along the lines of ‘it is bad for the environment’, or ‘it prevents a worker revolution by instilling fascination for trinkets etc’, but I feel they do not get to the heart of consumerism insofar as they are defined by their consequences, rather than the intrinsic ills of consuming as a primary end.)
“A creative argument (seen from the traditional right and the far left) that consumerist culture, defined above, makes it harder to produce great art/culture. The idea is that an excessive focus on mass-consumption, and profits from this, drives artists to make content for the lowest common denominator, and thus they no longer make ‘transcendent’ or ‘great’ art. This is where the term ‘selling out’ comes from, which is inextricable tied to consumerism. Naturally it also relates to how one assesses ‘great’ art (is there such a thing? There is at least new and innovative art which consumerism might hamper).”
This is something, as musician, I’ve been taking issue with, the claim of the “lowest common denominator“, as if it’s a bad thing. The reason being is that most creatives who complain about lack of originality don’t actually understand what not how originality works. Often to the point where, I’ve seen innovative art that was genuinely bad, but was accepted simply because it was anti-consumerist”. The issue is take is that art should appeal to the lowest common denominator for key reason, “Shared cultural connection”. How people connect to each other is often based on sharing tastes. This does not stop artists from being original as artists claim, while there will be obstacles at times, most artists are allowed to be original as long as they include that lowest comm denominator, in most cases, where they fail is that they lack respect for that principle. Then blame consumerism or capitalism, while not taking responsibility for the fact that the mainstream market likes things a certain way for good reasons. If art is to serve the world around it, art needs to respect the perspectives and tastes of the people to a good extent, while being able to challenge at times. Artists are not good understanding this, I too failed to get it years ago, until I began learning how bayside’s works as well as human nature. I want my music to unite people as much as I can get people to listen to it, so, I need to marry who I am to that “lowest common denominator”, this is how many greats have been successful when you dissect their work to see why so many people loved them. Most people bond over the “lowest common denominator” of that music. Motown was a machine in its own right, but they did good mechanising music, while bringing greatness to the process.
This is actually a good thing, primarily because such a mechanism is almost certainly key to how we avoid wireheading. In particular, it avoids the problem of RL agents inevitably learning to hack the reward, by always bringing it down to a set point of happiness and avoiding runaway happiness leading to wireheading.