Beyond communitarianism and consumerism

I have an essay, 'Beyond Communitarianism and Consumerism', in the new edition of Renewal. The piece argues that New Labour has built its policy programme upon two mutually contradictory notions of individual action and self-fulfillment. Communitarian policies aim to reign in our freedom, to embed us in local norms, while consumerism is deemed an unchallengeable force for erratic individual self-expression:

Everywhere one looks in Blair’s Britain, one sees these dual sovereignties battling it out, with the State offering its support to both sides. Undesirable behaviour is to be defied by the will of the community and technology of the State, while individuals demand more choice for themselves and their families. Government’s role swings constantly between enforcer and provider, seeking new forms of restraint for one segment of society, while feverishly removing restraints from another. Between the communitarian appeal for respect and community, and the consumer demand for flexibility and self expression, New Labour lacks its own account of what an ethical and sustainable model of freedom might actually look like, that depended on neither CCTV on the one hand, nor credit cards on the other.

Here's a word version of the article.

Comments

[Phil]

Good stuff, but I think you're too sanguine about the incompatibility of communitarianism and consumerism; it's quite possible to negotiate a combination of the two, either from above (cf. 'binge drinking') or from below (responsibility as a lifestyle choice). What gets lost - and what both Cs are opposed to, more strongly than they are to each other - is normative ethical individualism: the idea that adults make rational choices, act on that basis, accept the consequences of their actions and do all of this within the context of some kind of shared vision of the good society. In short, both consumerism and communitarianism are empty of any concept of politics - politics as a participatory activity, as a constitutent element of social life. (On which see Chris, on Blair and the unions.)

[Phil]

'Constitutive', even. (Oh, and it's "rein in" - hopefully somebody at Renewal will spot that.)

[JamesB]

Great article, though I feel the dialectal tension you pose between communitarianism and consumerism is a little forced. I also thought that your critique of consumerism reflected only a section, albeit a highly visible section of marketing, particularly FMCGs and electrical goods. Most goods are rational and or mundance purchases for which there is relatively little surprise or seduction. That said, I think that your conclusion to that section holds - consumers are feeling more disillusioned with the materialism they support through their own sense of need.

In recent research I've been doing one of the outcomes has been that people desire parameters, boundaries through which to navigate, which backs up Layards work about choice being debilitating, producing stress and anxiety.

It's maybe interesting tolook at the move identified by Chris Anderson from consumer-centric to people-as-brands [mavens to real brand like Jonathan Ross], in the online world may be producing a subtely different form of consumption which is perhaps more akin to the old co-operative / mutual ideals of shared ownership and belonging than the hard sell we're currently subject to.

[Will Davies]

Phil - that's exactly right, and what I'm seeking to get at. The key feature of contemporary politics is that it removes the possibility of transforming social systems, only of offering greater individual room for maneouvre within them.

James - I agree with your point about limits, as my Prospect article shows. But we need to distinguish between a respect for limits that sits within the consumerist paradigm (e.g. not baffling consumers with excessive or excessively complex choices) and those which might commit people to give up aspects of consumer sovereignty (e.g. ethics). I'm sure transformations in the nature of consumerism are real, and not insignificant; but it's still important to think about types of action that don't use market-type mechanisms as their mediators.

[David Lee]

Great article. But what I'm left unsure of is how we can get to this rational autonomous ethical state of self-government within the current dialetical framework of individualistic neo-liberal consumerism on the one hand, and a heavy handed communitarianism on the other? Is the idea of government retreating from certain areas in itself enough to effect this kind of shift. In short - I'm only asking you how will we transform the social system! Not a big question then...

Interestingly, there is a strong underlying utopian urge driving your argument - no bad thing. Perhaps this more ethical rational politics which you are hoping for is beginning to emerge at the cultural level now, in the desire for 'happiness', a deeper fulfilment than markets can offer, in the turn to ethical living, in the sense of something lost in the current formulation of society that we have. How can a cultural shift become a structural shift?