Critical consumerism

One variety of critical consumption is the political use of consumption: consumers’ choice of “producers and products with the aim of changing ethically or politically objectionable institutional or market practices.”[6] Such choices depend on different factors, such as non-economic issues that concern personal and family well-being, and issues of fairness, justice, ethical or political assessment. Forms and tools of political use of consumption are boycotting and "buycotting" (anti-boycotting), and also culture jamming or adbusting.

Political consumerism is a form of political engagement, especially for young generations. In addition, market-based political strategies of young citizens go beyond boycotting and “buycotting”; they also participate in internet campaigns, becoming active consumers. Their individual choices become political movements able to challenge political and economic powers.[7] As a political actor, the consumer “is seen as directly responsible not only for him or herself but also for the world”.[8] The phenomenon of political consumerism takes into account social transformations like globalization, the ever-increasing role of the market, and individualization.

Studies from the UK,[9] Germany,[10] Italy,[11] France,[12] North America,[13] and Scandinavia[14] argued that consumers are becoming increasingly politicized according to boycott and buycott principles. In particular, Scandinavian people seems to be more committed to political consumerism, for example Sweden increased his average of boycotting episodes from 15 percent in 1987 to 29 percent in 1997.[15]

It is difficult to assess whether political consumerism is a meaningful or effective form of political participation.[16]

The Boston Tea Party was an important example of boycotting against England

The pursuit of fair consumption has deep roots in consumption history. During the American Revolution, sympathizers of the American cause refused to buy English goods, to support the colonists' rebellion. This act of conscious choice is an early example of both critical and political consumption. Traces of these two concepts can be found at the turn of the nineteenth century in the United States, where the National Consumer League promoted the so-called “Whitelists”, in which companies that treated their employees fairly were listed.

At the end of the century, early forms of political activism in consumption took place in the United States and Europe, like the “Don't Buy Jewish” boycotts. Organizations were established that asked consumers to join the consumption-related actions as active subjects.

A variety of discourses about the “duty” and “responsibilities” of social actors arose after the 1999 World Trade Organization protests in Seattle. People were told that to shop is to vote.[17]

Boycotting and "buycotting" (Anti-boycott) are expressions of an individual’s political, ethical, or environmental stance. Both boycotting and buycotting are acts of critical consumption and they are mutually contingent. In fact, if the use-value or utility of a product is important, then it is difficult to view them as separate actions.

Buy Nothing Day (BND) demonstration in San Francisco, November 2000

Boycotting refers to abstaining from buying—avoiding specific products or brands to punish companies for undesirable policies or business practices. Buycotting is a term coined by Friedman (1996); it refers to “positive buying” that aims to foster corporations that represent values – such as fair trade, environmentalism, or sustainable development – that consumers choose to support.

When someone boycotts a product or service, this does not mean that he abstains from consuming at all, but that he may select an alternative product or service. Equally, a choice to "buycott" could be understood as including a rejection or boycott of the non-ethical alternative. This interdependence explains the pairing of boycotting and buycotting in much analysis of consumer politics.

A rising type of boycotting is the ad hoc variety. Such initiatives show that critical consumption is really impacting in special occasions, gaining much more visibility than everyday boycotts. An example of this type of event is the Buy Nothing Day (BND).

The notion of sustainability has both a temporal dimension demonstrated by the trade-off between present and future generations, and a justice dimension which considers the different distribution of harm and benefit.[18] Under the term sustainability, notions of sustainable resource consumption by recycling, environmental protection, animal welfare, social justice, and climate responsibilities are gathered.[19]

Among the criticisms of critical consumerism are these:

• Fair trade protocols invite consumers to respect communities and their cultures, workers’ rights, and so on. However consumers use it to impose a particular culture's point of view of what the right standards must be.
• It requires a huge production of green and ethical products, but is difficult to realize in small-scale local production.
• People live in an asymmetrical world in terms of information. They take decisions just with the use of few elements.
• “A ‘paradox of sustainability’ arises because more substantive approaches to sustainability may be too complex to effectively motivate appropriate social responses. Moreover, all human food consumption has some kind of impact—hence there will always be some kind of prioritization”.[20]

These are some examples of critical consumerism:

Rosa Parks with Martin Luther King Jr., 1955

• The Montgomery bus boycott was a political and social protest campaign against the policy of racial segregation on the public transit system of Montgomery, Alabama. The campaign started on December 5, 1955 when Rosa Parks, an African American woman, was arrested for refusing to surrender her seat to a white person. After that episode, boycotters organized a system of carpools, with car owners volunteering their vehicles or themselves driving people to various destinations.
• A boycott took place against Nestlé (1977–84) because of its marketing campaign of breast milk substitute or infant formula in the third world. This boycott mobilized consumers on a global-scale and it brought Nestlé to the World Health Organization and United Nations International Children Emergency Fund (UNICEF) negotiating table. In 1981, the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes was adopted. However, political consumerist groups were not satisfied with the Code implementation and reinstated the boycott in 1988.[24]
• Nike inc. has been accused for many years of exploiting child labour to produce footwear and apparel, though the company has denied such charges. The brand has been highly damaged by both political consumption activism and the publicity this has received in the media. Watchdog groups have forced Nike to raise wage levels, to change its sourcing of soccer balls to avoid child labor, to raise the minimum age of its factory workers abroad, and to insist that all outsourced footwear suppliers adopt US occupational safety and health standards for indoor air quality.[25]
• There are also several examples of culture consumption association. One of the best known is the “No Sweat" movement that is a non-profit organization that fights for the protection of sweatshop labourers, and fights against child labour, forced overtime, poverty wages, unsafe conditions, harassment of women workers, and intimidation of trade unionists, not only in developing countries, but also in Britain and the United States.

• Nike sweatshops
• Ethical consumerism
• Consumerism
• Boycotting
• Anti-Boycott
• Adbusting
• Culture jamming
• Sustainability
• Guilt-Free Consumption
• Organic food culture

• Bellotti, E. and Mora E., (2014) Networks of Practices in Critical Consumption, Sage
• Sandling, J.A. (2004), Consumerism, Consumption and a Critical Consumer Education for Adults, Wiley Periodicals