Feminism, Capitalism, and the Lie of Ethical Consumerism
Capitalism!
Again?
You be quiet. Today we start our new (official) series on Capitalism. I know you may be thinking, "But aren't these always about Capitalism?" This is true. But today is different because we're talking about feminism and Capitalism. See? It's two things this time.
So what's the deal?
Since the 1890s, advertising firms have treated women as the ubiquitous home shopper. By that we mean women were expected to do the shopping for everyone in their household – husband and children included. Shopping went from a utilitarian activity to a social experience; women could see friends, go to beauty parlors, get their nails done, you name it.
This was by design. Over time, advertising companies began to target women to convince them that their identities were rooted in the things that they purchased. If the world perceived women differently based on what they bought, then they needed to make sure they bought the perfect things. This conditioned women more susceptible to a specific type of marketing called greenwashing.
I totally know what that is, but you should explain it for the people who may not know it.
As a test?
As a test.
Greenwashing is a phenomenon introduced in the 1980s when consumers started getting more conscientious about their purchases. Companies used various strategies to make their products come off as more sustainable, eco-friendly, and ethical without actually doing the work to make them actually more sustainable. Six recurring marketing strategies were identified in a 2007 investigation:
Sin of the Hidden Trade-Off – products that are considered sustainable based on one attribute/characteristic
Sin of No Proof – products marketed with claims not easy to prove or disprove
Sin of Vagueness – the use of ambiguous claims that are too opaque to make an argument
Sin of Irrelevance – as it says, claims that are otherwise irrelevant to the product.
Sin of Fibbing – lying. That's right, we said it.
Sin of Lesser of Two Evils – a product that may be better than another product in comparison but belonging to a category that in itself is harmful
That's like...everything.
Correct. And women fall prey to this manipulative marketing because, as the core shoppers of the family unit, they felt pressure to present themselves as ecologically conscious. Soon these products became essential identity markers of the environmentally-conscious consumer, and this wildly successful marketing strategy persists even now.
These days, two versions of this trend are front and center in advertising: ethical consumption and environmentally conscious consumption. People try to avoid sweatshops, unfair labor conditions, and products whose production generates a significant amount of waste. Unfortunately, that's most products.
But even companies who make unethical or wasteful products market their products as ethically sound. All they have to do is apply some of the marketing sins above, and voila! They effectively trick consumers into believing they’re saving the world. And it works - companies take advantage of their customers’ conditioning and advertise the ethical identities they want. That's not to say that all people who buy these products are just trying to create a personality; it’s simply a reality of the marketing environment. You're not being sold a product, but a lifestyle.
But these are things that help the environment.
That is true. Many of these products are more beneficial for the environment than alternatives.
So, why is this bad?
“Better for the environment” does not necessarily translate to “good for the environment.” The best way to mitigate the negative effects of consumerism is refusing to participate in consumerism. That sounds difficult in practice, but it's an unfortunate conundrum of the economy we live in – an economy built on neoliberal values.
For example, we're told that the only way to help the global South is to purchase via companies with factories and enterprises located in those cities. However, those enterprises often produce for western companies while exploiting, abusing, and/or underpaying their workers. On one hand, it’s true that your support helps those workers keep the lights on. On the other, you're still supporting sweatshops. It’s the definition of a rock and a hard place.
In the face of this Catch 22, companies have gone so far as to blame consumers for unethical manufacturing and shipping practices. They throw around slogans like, "Vote with your wallet," which, while technically a valid strategy for some, is impossible for those with less privilege. People are inherently forced to buy what is within their means. Is someone making $25,000 a year going to reach for a $15 bamboo sponge? Or will they opt for a six pack of regular sponges for $6?
But these companies would have you believe that consumers would overwhelmingly demand sustainable products if they really wanted them. They use the cyclical buying behavior of those in poverty to justify their own lack of ethics. Either way, consumers lose and companies make money regardless.
This is by design. I know I said it before but trust me, it's going to come up again. This is by design.
So to sum up, women in particular are repeatedly told that they must buy for both status and ethics. To solve this problem, Capitalism insists that they need not reduce their consumption but indulge in equivalent “ethical” consumption. In essence, they are sold a fantasy that they don't have to sacrifice their personal expenditure while also improving the world around them.
Well, geez. So can you really not shop ethically?
In a general sense, no, you can't. If we’ve said it once, we’ve said it a thousand times: there is no ethical consumption under Capitalism.
But we don't want you to leave this episode/blog feeling like everything is a waste of time, that there's nothing you can do to prevent the world from crumbling. It is possible to make more conscientious choices as you shop. We give several examples in the podcast, including intuitive shopping when making non-essential purchases. All you can do is ask yourself two questions: Do I need this? Is there a way that I could purchase this more ethically?
As tough as it is, try not to let consumerism get into your head. You don’t have to shop “perfectly” 100% of the time. You're allowed to buy stuff for the sake of making yourself happy. People deserve to have things that make them happy. The systems of Capitalism are complex, older than some societies, and absolutely not your fault. The best we can do is operate within it as best we can.
Any fun parting remarks?
Yes! Watch Abigail's video on Marxism and witches and Natalie from ContraPoints’ video on opulence. We might be compelled to buy fancy water bottles to escape the disdain of our peers, but at least we can do it while watching fun videos, g*ddamnit.