Abstract
Little work has been done on understanding the ways in which resistant consumers interpret the causes and responsible agents for structures of domination. Drawing on collective action frames, we examine how a consumer resistance movement defines both its antagonists (adversarial framing) and its advocacy strategies for response (prognostic framing). Discourses of resistant consumers are analyzed through the lens of power, since to explore these frames is also to study the question of who is perceived as the locus of power and how power/resistance is exercised to achieve the movement’s goals. A kaleidoscopic framing emerges that reveals multiple points and forms of resistance. To counteract the underlying attribution of responsibility (the materialistic ideology dominant in Western societies), consumers bring into play a repertoire of actions that enable them to construct both themselves and others as ethical persons. Based on these findings the research contributes to the literature on consumer resistance by broadening the most commonly held vision of power, namely, power as domination and control possessed by distinctly identifiable agents. This study, by contrast, provides evidence of discourses that assume power is exercised in a reticular, shifting, and productive manner, a vision of power that corresponds closely to that articulated in the work of Foucault and Arendt. An emphasis on this perception of power relationships in the realm of consumer resistance extends and enriches understanding of a movement’s dynamics, whilst also enhancing the movement’s capacity to change the materialistic ideology that it refuses to accept.
Keywords
Introduction
Consumer resistance has had a long history. Consumer resistance movements have adopted multiple foci, such as politically or religiously motivated consumer boycotting (Friedman 1999; Witkowski 2010), the anti-global corporation movement (Holt 2002; Kozinets and Handelman 2004), the ethical consumerism movement (Shaw and Newholm 2002), or the anti-consumption for environmental preservation movement (Black and Cherrier 2010; Cherrier, Black, and Lee 2011). This research will focus on movements to change the materialist-consumerist ideology (Kozinets and Handelman 2004; Cherrier, 2007). The term “resistance” primarily implies a human act of opposition that originates in both a perception of dissonant elements that produces negative emotions in the subject and in a response of non-acceptance that may be expressed passively or actively (Roux 2007). In the realm of consumer behavior, resistance has been conceptualized as “acts against consumption understood as a pervasive structure of domination” (Penaloza and Price 1993, p. 123).
As Holt (2002) notes, the dominant consumer culture, structured as it is mainly by company marketing practices, is necessary for the proper functioning of capitalism, as it sustains market expansion and the accumulation of profit. Moreover, it is widely accepted that the ideology of consumption is embedded within the dominant social paradigm of Western industrial societies (Kilbourne, McDonagh, and Prothero 1997), and that this ideology is an obstacle in the transition towards sustainability (Assadourian 2010; Prothero et al. 2011).
However, little has been done to date to understand how participants interpret that structure of domination. Kozinets and Handelman (2004), Thompson (2004), and Thompson and Coskuner-Balli (2007) have contributed to the understanding of the movement’s ideology formation. Firat and Venkatesh (1995) and Kozinets (2002) have also analyzed the dynamics of emancipation from the market. However, previous work on consumer resistance has referred mainly to effects (especially environmental degradation and social injustice) (e.g. Caruana 2007; Shaw and Newholm 2002), whereas the perceived causes tend to be taken for granted and/or are glossed over (e.g. in vague references to a “corporate-driven society,” Cherrier 2007; or to “anti-capitalism,” Shaw and Newholm 2002).
Analyzing the perception of the causes of the problem and the responses to it is key to understanding the processes of social movements, since these issues, as Benford and Snow (2000) contend, are considered to be key elements of collectively constructed meanings, or “framings.” By drawing on these authors’ concept of collective frames – adversarial framing and prognostic framing – we aim to examine how throughout its discourse the resistant consumer movement defines its antagonists (adversarial framing), and its advocacy strategies for response (prognostic framing).
The discourse of the consumer resistance movement is examined specifically through the lens of power. Power is central in understanding human interactions and the creation of systems (Butler 1997), and yet research into resistant consumption has rarely taken it into account (Moraes, Shaw, and Carrigan 2011; Shankar, Cherrier, and Canniford, 2006; Thompson 2004). However, if resistance is conceived as a human act of opposition and a response (Roux 2007), it implies the construction of a concept of an opponent perceived as the locus of power. In other words, to study adversarial and prognostic frames of the consumer resistance movement is actually to study relationships of power, since resistance can be used “as a chemical catalyst so as to bring to light power relations, locate their position, and find out the point of application and the methods used” (Foucault 1982, p. 780).
Power is “a complex and multifaceted phenomenon” (Karlberg 2005, p. 13) and the literature on power is accordingly vast. Diverse disciplines and traditions use the term “power” variously to mean, inter alia, the subjugation of others, the ability to control one own’s life, capacity, or skills, or the consent of the governed (e.g. Arendt 1958; Denigri-Knott, Zwick, and Schroeder 2006; Habermas and MacCarthy 1977).
This paper draws fundamentally on the conceptualizations of power by Foucault and Arendt. Although not identical, their perspectives of power share several features (Allen 2002; Franěk 2014) that adequately explain the view of the resistant consumers as it is expressed in their discourse. The findings of this study will be interpreted with the help of three basic premises found in Foucault and Arendt.
First, these authors reject the so-called “sovereign” or “juridical” model (Foucault 1980, 1999) or the “command-obedience” model (Arendt 1969), that is, the view of power as the imposition of the will of the powerful on the powerless. Throughout his work Foucault, inside the context of modern liberal democracies, articulates his rejection of this dualistic view of power, in which someone is always the dominator and someone else the dominated. Foucault (1984) contends that power permeates everything. Power is exercised via a reticulated structure, where positions shift because the subjects involved in the power relationship are free to choose from a “field of possibilities” (Foucault 1982, p. 794). Freedom is a precondition for power, so that if positions are fixed, no power relationship can exist except as a “state of domination” (Foucault, 1997, p. 283). Arendt (1969) likewise refers to “violence” as an instrument of command, which is opposed to power: “where one dominates absolutely, the other is absent” (p. 77) 1 .
This view of power forms part of a school of thought within power theories, which is labelled as power to, so as to differentiate it from power over (e.g. Allen 1998; Wartenberg 1990). Whereas power over underlines the ideas of competition, control, influence, and coercion, power to rests on ideas of capacity, development, authenticity, and integration either of individuals or of communities (Allen 1998; Arendt 1958, 1969; Boulding 1990; Dowding 2011; Follet 1920). Power over implies adopting an ad extra or external outlook, and an antagonistic and hegemonic vision of power (see Karlberg 2005 and Kreisberg 1992 for a review), one which can be attributed to “individuals, collectivities, institutions, and social structures” (Dowding 2011, p. 521). In contrast, power to implies adopting an ad intra or internal outlook, which emphasizes the idea of power as self-transformation (Arendt 1969; Foucault 1985). Although both aim to exert a performative effect, the focus is different: power over focuses on others, whereas power to focuses on oneself.
Second, Foucault and Arendt defend a relational view of power (Allen 2002; Franěk 2014). Power cannot be amassed. It is not an attribute or resource to be possessed, but something that is exercised in relationships. For Foucault, power is fluid and can be resisted at innumerable points, thus giving rise to a plurality of resistances (1978). For Arendt (1958, 1969) power is collective action or the ability to act in concert.
Lastly, for Foucault and Arendt power is productive, as it is key to the formation of individuals. Individuals are not (only) subject to multiple relations of power, but also reconverted into subjects participating in those power relations. Power is thus the precondition for both agency and subjectivity (Allen 2002).
From this conception of power we seek to contribute to the literature of consumer resistance by examining the adversarial and prognostic framing that emerges from the discourse of individuals who see themselves as resistant consumers. Examining discourse is key, since power is inscribed in the discourses and language structures at work in our social practices. As such, it is reasonable to claim that “subjects are socially constructed within discourses” (Shankar, Cherrier, and Canniford 2006, p. 1016).
Analyzing consumers’ discourse will reflect both the hegemonic discourse and its individual manifestation. On the one hand, hegemonic discourses become social norms and shape reality (Giddens 1971). On the other, when individuals evaluate and question hegemonic discourses, they create their own discourse, and by doing so they are actually resisting power (Shankar, Cherrier, and Canniford 2006). Furthermore, these individuals are “constructing a relationship to the multiple discourses of power that circulates in their everyday lives” (Thompson 2004, p. 170) “in a dynamic system of shifting and perpetually morphing relationships between power and resistance” (p. 174). As such, examining consumer discourse is actually examining “macroprocesses at work” (Dolan 2002, p. 171).
By examining this adversarial and prognostic framing, we contribute to a better understanding of the ideology of the consumer resistance movement, thereby complementing the work of previous authors (Kozinets and Handelman 2004). We view the power underlying the framing of the movement is being well explained by the literature on power to, which offers a decentralized, creative, productive, and relational view of power. This complements existing scholarship on consumer resistance that has traditionally maintained a “power as domination” focus. Following the explanation of the design of the study, we divide the findings into two sections, devoted to exploring adversarial and prognostic framing, respectively. We end with a discussion of the results and some conclusions.
Method
To accomplish the aims of this research, the interpretative methodology of Grounded Theory (GT) was used. GT is appropriate when researchers need “to ‘abstract’ the data and to think ‘theoretically’ rather than descriptively” (Goulding 2002, p. 152).
The type of theory that this paper aims to construct resembles the Foucauldian notion of theory, since it attempts not to formulate the global “systematicity” that locates everything in a particular place, but rather to analyze the specificity of power mechanisms, focusing on their connections and the extensions so as to progressively build strategic knowledge (Foucault 1999).
We follow the constructivist tradition in GT (Charmaz 2014), adhering particularly to the guidelines of Strauss and Corbin (1990) and Charmaz (1983) on the role of literature. The review of the literature was an ongoing process throughout the analysis. Literature on responsible/ethical consumption was reviewed at the outset so as to acquire the conceptual apparatus necessary to the analysis. During the analysis itself, the literature on power, consumer power, and consumer resistance was reviewed to help refine emerging categories and to provide fresh theoretical interpretations. During the analysis, the authors made a special effort to “bracket out” so that the key categories would emerge. By doing so, the researchers are seeking to ensure that categories are “shaped from data rather than from preconceived logically deduced theoretical frameworks” (Charmaz 1983, p. 117).
Twelve consumers were interviewed with interviewing ended when saturation was reached. Participants were recruited in three ways. First, a call for participants solicited respondents who regarded themselves as “responsible consumers” (consumidores responsables in Spanish), since the term consumo responsable is frequently used to refer to the movement under analysis. The definition of responsible consumption was not restricted in any way, nor was any list of forms of behavior provided to cite prior examples of “resistant consumers.” The call for participants was placed on both physical and virtual sites, such as fair trade/vegan restaurants, nonprofits, organic/fair trade/vegan stores, fan pages, and websites of related organizations frequented by target consumers. Six interviewees were recruited in this way, by applying a sampling criterion similar to that used in previous research (Papaoikonomou, Valverde, and Ryan 2012; Shaw and Shiu 2003). Second, by using convenience sampling, five individuals who matched the profile were invited to participate. Third, by using snowball sampling, one further interviewee was recruited. Interviewees varied in age, sex, academic background, life-cycle stage, occupation, and religion (see Table 1). The sample is similar in age, gender, and education to other activists, according to the study published in El Diario (2013).
Description of Interviewees.
Interviewers used a topic list to guide the conversations, during which no attempt was made to direct the responses. Following a series of grand tour questions, consumers were asked about their concerns and what they perceived as the causes of these concerns. The conversation was then directed to a description of what they did as consumers. Interviews lasted between 1-2 hours and were conducted in person. They took place following the explosion of the Indignados movement in Spain, in the midst of the worst economic, social, and political crisis that the country has experienced in recent decades, so consumer narratives were undoubtedly sensitive to this context.
Conventional analysis procedures in GT were used (Strauss and Corbin 1990). Interviews were transcribed and analyzed iteratively: initially line-by-line (open coding), after which initial codes were subsumed into higher-order categories or concepts (axial coding) to abstract the discourses. Constant comparison allowed shared discourses among participants to be identified.
It is important to bear in mind that the objects of analysis in this paper are participants’ discourses - categories, in GT terms - and not the individuals themselves. Interviews were interpreted as if they were the voice of the movement, and theoretically representative of the movement as a whole. Quotes are ascribed to individuals so as to increase validity and traceability, but no attempt is made to map consumers’ responses or quantify which discourses are most prevalent among the participants.
The findings explained below should by no means be understood as a final or complete interpretation (Locke 2001), as the data were collected in a sample of activists living in Madrid during the summer of 2011, right after the explosion of the Movimiento 15-M, a meta-movement where different social movements, under de the umbrella of “other world is possible,” coalesced and occupied Puerta del Sol square.
Findings Overview
The problems cited at the basis of consumer resistance are no different from those reported in other studies (Cherrier 2009; Kozinets and Handelman 2004; Moraes, Shaw, and Carrigan 2011; Shaw, Newholm, and Dickinson 2006). They include the exploitation of people, the planet, and animals; growing inequalities, especially in income distribution; and over-consumption blind to the Earth’s limited carrying capacity. Respondents also explain that they are suffering from the consequences of eroded social relations, a reduction in their quality of life, and a lack of available time for personal growth and for developing their relationships. Beyond this articulation of perceived problems, the main research challenges are to determine who is perceived as the locus of power and how power is exercised/resisted in achieving the movement’s goals.
Naming the Adversary: Adversarial Framing
In the interviews, three discourses emerge, each corresponding to a different view of responsibility for the construction of “greed-driven” relationships, referring to those oriented towards the endless accumulation of material wealth. Each discourse describes the locus of power differently: the enemies may be (a) the human condition, (b) the managerial elites, or (c) the underlying mindset.
Blaming the Human Condition
This discourse places responsibility for the current structure of domination on individuals, as organizations and structures are made up of individuals. Yet, rather than inculpating specific individuals, an approach/tactic observed by other authors (Kozinets and Handelman 2004; Luedicke, Thompson, and Giesler 2010), this discourse blames the human condition. Human beings have a natural tendency to “amass things,” irrespective of the impact this has on the natural world or on other people and people are “greedy,” “ambitious,” “narrow minded,” and driven by “self-interest.” Pablo’s words are categorical in this respect: “All systems have failed because human beings [we] are pretty nasty.” José’s words also illustrate this view: It’s not the economy, it’s the way human beings live (…) I blame human beings’ excessive, genetic marker for consumption. If all cultures become consumerist as soon as they’re able to, then everyone becomes a consumer when they’re able to.
Moreover, the agency of these respondents is explained because they do not share this human condition. The explanation allows them to write off their sacrifice and effort to lead a frugal lifestyle and avoid consumption: “It’s nothing, I don’t want things, it’s easy for me” (Pedro). As a result, they do not chastise other (mainstream) consumers, contrary to the narratives in Kozinets and Handelman (2004).
By placing the blame on a natural/an innate human tendency to consume, this discourse displaces the blame from markets, firms, and governments. For instance, businesses are believed to produce goods/ services in response to consumer demands. If consumers alter their demands, firms will follow suit. This strongly behaviorist position of power sustains the idea that the consequences of power are observable because they are exerted through explicit, overt, behaviors. From this modernist view of consumer empowerment, that of the consumer sovereignty model, power is equated to the exercise of choice by free and rational individuals (Denigri-Knott, Zwick, and Schroeder 2006; Shankar, Cherrier, and Canniford 2006).
Blaming the Managerial Elites
A second discourse points the finger at political and business elites as the ones to blame. More specifically, this discourse suggests that the main obstacle to sustainability lies in lack of regulation. Either regulation does not exist, is not enforced, or is insufficient. The reason is that political parties no longer seek the common good and no longer protect their citizens, but seek simply to achieve their own objectives, namely, to amass wealth. Almudena, for instance, suggests the expression “no longer” when she distinguishes between governments before and after those of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s. She explicitly attributes the change in politicians’ orientation to the hegemony of neoliberalism and the ethos of incremental financial growth: “the change was to give hegemony to financial profits”. Santiago adds: “I’m worried that the economy drives social, cultural issues (…). The economy is the only important thing. The economy pulls the cart, and everything else is being towed along.”
Consumers see themselves as managed by a greedy “political class” working in alliance with business. This is another recurrent theme: business has taken over government. For participants, the twin facts that former MPs and presidents are corporate board members and that business people are members of political parties clearly highlight the relationship between governments and companies: “How can they be impartial? They are going to favor firms,” says Almudena. In some cases, they insist that this “alliance” is not as clear and overt in other cultures (e.g. Scandinavian countries).
Large multinational corporations are singled out for particular condemnation. Consumers question the social impact of such corporations, as Antoine’s narrative shows: “If I buy from Ikea, it’s not going to benefit the local economy and I don’t know who will benefit from it.” The financial industry is highlighted as being as the main power in the shadows. Banks and the financial class are described as the ultimate arbitrators of the policies and practices that are condemned by interviewees as the sources of the evils of our world.
This discourse summarizes the postmodernist critique that one cannot trust governments to protect society’s interests. In modern culture, the market and its creators – businesses - have become the primary institution of power (Firat 2012). Their hegemony has been reinforced in recent decades as the market has grown to fill the void left by social and political institutions (Firat and Venkatesh 1995).
Blaming the Underlying Mindset
This last discourse places the locus of power of the problem in “our culture,” “our values,” “our mentality.” Echoing the work of Shankar and Fitchett (2002), Victoria states the collective belief that “what you have is more important than what you are” is the creator of these greed-driven relationships. This discourse places the blame squarely on the symbols of consumer society. This is expressed by respondents in their refusal to be “trapped in the system” by having a mortgage, a house, or a mobile phone; and by their preference for hand-made goods or for giving and sharing rather than exchanging goods for a price, as is typical of market relationships. “A good life is feeling that what I own belongs to my friends,” explains Vicente. “If I have a cottage, I don’t rent it out, I enjoy it if my friends use it… That’s the good life!”
This third discourse places the blame on the dominant social paradigm in Western countries (Kilbourne, McDonagh, and Prothero 1997) or on “the manipulation of the masses into some common way of thinking” (Best 2012, p. 33). The dominant view serves as the “institutional foundation for materialism in Western societies” (Kilbourne et al. 2009, p. 259) and functions as the key driver of capitalism’s success. Consumer discourses refer explicitly to the components of the dominant social paradigm of growth (they condemn constant economic growth and material accumulation as the life goal of individuals and organizations) and to components of anthropocentrism. “Animals are not thought to be beings so much as possessions. So we’re witnessing the paradigm that some living beings are more important than others,” says Joe.
Following Lukes (1974), one might argue that the dominant social paradigm results from “symbolic” power where needs, cognitions, and preferences are molded by a totalizing knowledge system. As such, cultural constructions end up being “naturalized” by the recipients, and therefore go unquestioned. This is precisely the situation which Firat (2012, p. 81) portrays: “no one any longer questions why the health of the market and its expansion should precede the health of human beings.” This is the most insidious form of power, since it instills needs and beliefs in subjects that work against their “true” needs. This form of power is condemned (Dowding 2006) because it restricts human beings’ capacity to function as just that, human beings. It curtails our freedom, our authenticity, and generates a distorted sense of self.
This discourse posits that materialism has long-term negative consequences (Scott, Martin, and Schouten 2014). Embracing materialism works against the true interests of human beings and overconsumption has negative effects that are both internal (reduced happiness) and external (jeopardizing the survival of the planet and the species living on it). Consumption is associated with a form of “enslavement”, so it is thought that people are less free when they consume more. Ana, for instance, brings up this argument: Following current consumption patterns will not lead to more just and healthier economic relationships…I think you can live without buying that much… without accumulating objects, and then creating waste…for me, the most important thing is that I am acting freely, that I am not coerced, that I am doing things as I think I have to do them, having the freedom to act, following my conscience and my principles. I mean that freedom is the way you behave and the way you feel, and this gives you peace, and what you’re doing is not seeking self-interest, but being mindful of others, of collectiveness, and not your own interest.
Articulating the Response: Prognostic Framing
For Arendt (1969), the difficulty of attributing blame to a single entity is a barrier to action: “Where all are guilty, no one is; confessions of collective guilt are the best possible safeguard against the discovery of culprits, and the very magnitude of the crime the best excuse for doing nothing” (p. 65). However, consumer discourses are non-fatalistic. This is not surprising, as fatalism has been found to be an important barrier to responsible consumption (Eckhardt, Belk, and Devinney 2010). Consumer optimism is based on the belief that “we can still change things” and assumes that consumers have a role to play even when they believe that something else is causing the problems. Respondents said: “I don’t want to be a spectator, but rather an actor for change” (Pablo) and “The solution is in our hands” (Santiago). Under current conditions, consumer discourse does not consider that other agents (e.g. governments) are capable of driving and managing change in the system, either because such agents do not know how to do so, cannot do so, or are not interested in doing so.
Power is exercised through the production of a new counter-hegemonic discourse. Specifically, two discourses emerge which, drawing from Giddens (1984), can be labelled, “practical consciousness” and “discursive consciousness.” Practical consciousness discourse promotes the adoption of daily acts and routines, whereas discursive consciousness encourages reflection and understanding. These categories should be interpreted as analytical as they are not mutually exclusive alternatives. Also, both discourses intend to be performative as they both propose the solution to the problems constituting the crux of the movement.
Practical Consciousness
This discourse posits that resistance to the system is encapsulated in acts. Ultimately, resistance is a question of identifying and abandoning a specific form of behavior perceived as non-sustainable and of learning and adopting new, more responsible, sustainable habits. As Pablo affirms, “our actions are worth something, and they affect our environment.” This echoes the theories of Bourdieu, Giddens, and Parsons (Dowding 2011), for whom practices are the key element in reproducing existing discourses and structures.
I watched The Weekday Vegetarian [a TED talk about vegetarianism], which I thought was great, very practical. It says “OK, I’d like to be vegetarian but I can’t, because I don’t have the right habits,” and it suggests changing your meals (habits) from Monday to Friday.
The important thing is that the action is carried out, even though this may not be accompanied by a change in personal values. José viewed vegetarianism and reducing his meat consumption as follows: “It doesn’t matter: the important thing is that people do it because it’s convenient, even when they don’t do it out of conviction. If you do something out of convenience, many people end up becoming convinced.” Although it is desirable that such actions stem from the conscience, respondents do not believe that this always occurs; hence the law should ensure that individuals behave appropriately. As Pablo puts it: “You need laws to raise people’s awareness.” This approach emphasizes that the exercise of power is always “a way of acting upon an acting subject or acting subjects by virtue of their acting or being capable of action” (Foucault 1982, p. 789).
In this discourse, the prevailing belief sees the market as an effective arena for bringing about change. It is through individual decision-making that social change is achieved. Here, in contrast with some views (Kozinets 2002; Kozinets and Handelman 2004; Shankar, Cherrier, and Canniford 2006), resistance within the market is deemed an effective strategy instead of a (necessary) evil: “I’m a strong defender of demand. If people don’t ask for something, it can’t exist” (Santiago). Businesses are thought to play a pivotal role in the transition to sustainability, by offering alternatives to consumers and by using their influence and resources to facilitate change. Far from being anti-company, the practical consciousness discourse suggests that individuals acting as consumers, entrepreneurs, managers, or shareholders can exercise resistance.
This discourse characterizes consumer resistance as material, circumstantial, compartmentalized, rational, and individual. It is material because moral concerns are translated into the use of goods and services with ethical attributes and channeled through explicit and specific forms of behaviors (buying and non-buying). It is circumstantial because it occurs when personal and professional circumstances so allow. It is compartmentalized insofar as it pertains to the subject’s private sphere without necessarily being linked to other areas of his/her life, such as work or personal relationships. And it is rational in that each act performed stems from a free, logical, and informed decision, based on “neutral arguments” or scientific evidence, and as such it is not associated with ideological positioning. Pedro, for example, in discussing veganism, states that for some people “food choices are associated with political ideology, but I think they’re different things.”
In effect, the prevailing logic in this discourse is that of the sovereign consumer model (Denigri-Knott, Zwick, and Schroeder 2006). According to this model, changes in the rules of the marketplace and, ultimately, in society, will derive from aggregated actions composed of individual choices. The interviewees, especially in their role as consumers, express their values, needs, and desires through daily acts that are then interpreted by the system and determine its socio-political configuration. The solution to problems generated in the marketplace is therefore found in the private and not the public sphere, since final responsibility lies within oneself. This exemplifies one of the criticisms by Foucault (Lemke 2002) of the neo-liberal model of rationality, in which “the consequences of the action are borne by the subject alone, who is also solely responsible for them” (p. 60). Likewise, Arendt (1958) resents the fact that these issues are dealt with as questions issuing from the private rather than the public realm.
The praxis of this discourse mainly manifests in the form of three actions: exercising consumption, abstaining from or reducing consumption, and setting an example. In the first case, the interviewees seek to exercise their power by using mainstream channels or some alternative. Each act of purchasing (and not purchasing) is perceived as an act of power since it is a way of influencing the decision of other agents (Moraes, Shaw, and Carrigan 2011; Shaw, Newholm, and Dickinson 2006). This tactic is sometimes complemented by individual acts of voicing discontent.
I like to complain to companies, which I think are doing wrong, but only on a personal basis. On the Internet, pressure is often exercised by groups. I prefer to do it on my own account.
The second strategy is to abstain from consumption and to reduce the frequency of certain acts: “The truth is that not consuming is something I’m very aware of” (Ana). Such statements imply, in differing degrees, a rejection of dominant consumer patterns, non-participation in forms of behavior which resistant consumers see as being embedded in the materialistic and consumerist rationale, which they reject.
In the end I’ve simply tried to develop my own consumer patterns, meaning that I consume less: not throwing food away, consuming local products, and adopting habits which I know will get results.
These forms of behavior mean practicing self-discipline in line with self-imposed norms. This emphasis on self-discipline has been discussed since the ancient Greeks who captured it in the idea of enkrateia, reinterpreted by Foucault (1985) to express an agonistic relationship between a vigilant self and an adversary that is also part of the subject. This struggle, realized through the technologies of self, is the precondition for becoming moderate (sophron), able to master desire and pleasure and thus exercise power over oneself. Winning “small battles against yourself” (Joe) is deemed vital for a paradigm change.
In this discourse self-discipline is necessary for two intertwined reasons. First, it curbs human materialistic instincts. Almudena says “I try, as I said, not to buy in excess so that I don’t have to throw it away … I try to buy what it is needed, but… regarding clothes, I should control myself more, there, um, I buy too much, but, well, the first step is to be aware of it.” Second, self-discipline runs “counter to the mainstream,” as Pablo explains when he describes how he fights the dominant habit of going to shopping centers, in contrast to what he sees as the better option of buying in neighborhood stores: “but often you have no choice (…): if people go to the shopping center thirty times a year, I try to go twice.”
Moreover, such “technologies of the self” are thought to have emancipatory potential since they “transform individuals and partially liberate them from previous cultural circuits” (Shankar, Cherrier, and Canniford 2006, p. 1019). A similar experience is reported in this discourse. Self-discipline and self-containment are valued, and these qualities, when practiced, may be translated into a sense of achievement and freedom. Pedro made a kind of pact with himself when he adopted a vegetarian diet, and expressed great satisfaction when he understood that he had successfully met the challenge. He mentioned “a series of rules which you set yourself and which make you feel very gratified.”
This experience of self-control reported by our respondents broadens the notion of enkrateia as a means for discovering new capacities and new abilities, and for flourishing, that is, for achieving growth, development, and transformation. Therefore, power over oneself not only has emancipatory, but also creative potential, as Wartenberg (1990) noted. Shankar, Cherrier, and Canniford (2006) put forward a similar idea when they explain how empowerment occurs when consumers realize that “the logic of market relations does not deliver on its promise of improving the quality of their lives” (p. 1020). From this perspective, consumers may counter the “seduction” of the consumerist society and its discourse of happiness through having. Almudena, who has progressively acquired new habits such as buying organic and fair trade products, adopting vegetarianism, and using ethical banking, explains how these changes have made her a more fulfilled person: “at the personal level, I feel better about myself (…) it’s about health, too, spiritual as well as mental and physical.” Also, Joe compares his efforts to “labors of love” that give meaning to the “sacrifice,” as it will bring value to “ourselves and other people involved in the chain.”
These two practices of consumption (buying and non-buying) have been criticized as being entrenched in simplistic logic and based on a profound ignorance of the mechanisms of both the marketplace and society (e.g. Shaw and Black 2010). To the extent that this logic prioritizes the individual over socio-political structures, solutions to collective problems can be found at the individual level, so that “ironically, the status quo may be supported” (Riger 1993, p. 281). Moreover, such logic conveys an “illusion of power” (Riger 1993, p. 282) where subjects have the sensation that they are exercising power within the system, but in reality their actions are insufficient to produce socio-economic changes. The individual’s actions are diluted in the overall market activity, and access to resources or politics is not provided or granted. However, Foucault might view such practices as an example of micro-resistance to micro-powers, exercised at the capillary ends.
This criticism of the predominance of the individual dimension of empowerment is somewhat weakened by the third strategy used in the discourse: that of setting examples for others to follow. Rather than incorporating the idea of pressure, which is applied (or believed to be applied) to markets, this discourse adopts a different tone when dealing with influence over others, who tend to be people in one’s inner circle. It is not a question of controlling others, but of inspiring them. Pablo is very explicit about this: “Who am I to tell anyone what they have to do? But if I can, I might make someone rethink things, using myself as an example.”
Stemming from the conviction that new habits are learned through exposure to them, one form of resistance is to explore the context that consumers themselves have experienced and that has made it easy for them to adopt new habits. For example, Pedro lived for years with vegetarian friends, from whom he learned that one can “feed oneself well, eat very well without needing to eat meat.” However, “they weren’t proactive – they never obliged me or lectured me in any way. I don’t even know why they’re vegetarian. We never mentioned it.” He considers it is easier to teach family or friends “without the need for activism; they see how you eat and maybe they just copy your idea.” Pedro emphasizes the subtle influence exerted by modeling alternative ways of consuming: “I try not to directly influence those people who are close to me, but at the same time I can expose them to other possibilities.” To this end, he has designed a blog with vegetarian recipes to which only those close to him have access.
In this discourse, verbal activism is restricted to situations in which the other person requires information. It is therefore a discourse that focuses more strongly on the alternatives to, and consequences of, one’s actions than on the reasons underlying and causing them. The reasons and causes are believed to be multiple, and they vary from person to person.
Setting an example also implies rejection of what Kozinets and Handelman (2004) called the “evangelical overtone” of those resistant consumers whom they researched. Contrary to the narratives of Luedicke and Giesler (2008), respondents do not engage in adversarial contestation – for example, using insults, belittlement, or ridicule – but rather in instruction. It has repeatedly been acknowledged that very little is achieved by adopting a “radical” stance. “It’s not [about] evangelizing through fear,” contends Joe, “but about motivating people.” In this way, an “example chain” is created, in an attempt to start a “concerted action” or the “reticular structure” through which power is exercised (Allen 2002).
Discursive Consciousness
In contrast with the practical consciousness discourse, the focus in this case is on reflection and on awareness-raising, on the examination of the causes of the problems, and on pondering the hegemonic ontologies of human beings and the biosphere. Discursive consciousness revolves around raising questions and finding answers, understanding the connections between phenomena, identifying common interests, and imagining “a global paradigm change” (Pedro) or a “change of era” (José). In doing so, it unveils the “false consciousness” as Engels said, or breaks the “glass floor” (Cherrier, Szuba, and Özçaglar-Toulouse 2012).
Today, human beings must rethink themselves. Rethink what they are doing. If you’re capable of abstracting yourself from all this and seeing what lies behind it (…) what we’re asking for is another way of organizing things, based on other values, so that the value of your individual effort to get as much as you can is not the value which is most highly regarded.
Thus, the aim is to unfold a counter-hegemonic mindset rather than acquire a set of new habits. Resistance is not to be associated with a (pre-established) list of behaviors (Roux 2007). This state of awareness is understood as an act of power. As illustrated by Pablo, “If I go to McDonald’s a couple of times a year, then I go. But I know it’s an awful place, and that’s crucial, because most people don’t know that.” Although this quote could be interpreted as a justification for non-action, it could also be thought as a possible reaction when power relations are fixed (e.g. when significant others are imposing the choice of the restaurant) and individuals are facing a state of domination. In these situations, inner resistance emerges as the chosen form of resistance, since the structure of domination does not allow the subject to reflect his/her true self. This resembles Sennett’s (1993) distinction between “outer self” and “inner self.” While the subject appears to obey the dominant norms externally, inwardly s/he rejects them: “My actions don’t really matter, since I don’t really believe in them” (Sennett 1993, p. 137).
Unlike in the previous discourse, the market, as it is configured nowadays, is not considered to be a sufficient or adequate space for implementing the profound transformations which are seen as urgent and necessary. Markets are not seen as a succession of individual exchanges, but rather resemble Polanyi’s vision of them as being embedded. They are, therefore, the result of interplay among social, economic, political factors, and it is only by reconceptualizing and reinventing these factors through a moral lens that markets will be transformed.
As such, consumer acts lose importance. More suitable activities and spaces exist for understanding and explaining the deficiencies in the current system and for imagining alternative rules to those imposed by capitalism, such as the heterotopias that have been identified in other studies (Chatzidakis, Maclaran, and Bradshaw 2012). Ana, for example, is interested in “barter economies, in trying to avoid money, and in producing things for exchange with others who also produce things.” She also participates in politically committed film and photography and supports informal loan networks and microfinance. Other channels which raise awareness and social participation are social networks (e.g. Facebook and Twitter), anti-consumerism magazines (e.g. Options), local representative assemblies (15 M or the Indignados movement), self-managed consumer groups, social businesses, and eco villages. Collective action can be launched from such platforms, with the aim, Joe’s words, of “combining forces to change models.”
In this context, consumer resistance is characterized by attributes different from those of the practical consciousness discourse, and which are metaphysical, persistent, holistic, emotional, and relational. Consumer resistance is metaphysical because it distances itself from the purely pragmatic approach of the previous discourse. As such it becomes an ethical umbrella under which new ways of seeing and speaking can be created, transcendental questions can be articulated, and via which a paradigm change can be managed. For example, Joe’s veganism has led him to enquire more deeply into these transcendental questions. Along with most of the interviewees, he states that his final objective is “to be a good person and have a good life.” However, he believes that ethical buying is not the right way either to achieve his end or to change the world. He believes, in fact, that “if you participate in first-world living, you are guilty by association (…) I’m a part of the problem, of the system. I think that we always have to be aware that we’re a part of the problem. So I want responsible consumerism to be more about responsibility than about consumerism.”
When it ceases to be a simple question of acquiring new habits, resistance rises to the level of a philosophy of life which seeps into other areas of the individuals’ lives. For example, Almudena explains that adopting this mentality “has meant a great change in my life,” with consequences for her job (she is currently creating a social business), her social relationships (she is seeking new social circles where she can share her concerns), and her hobbies (she has swapped tennis for yoga and meditation). As this quote shows, resistance provides a basis for growth and development.
Fourthly, resistance is no longer seen as a rational decision-making process but as emotional, “irrational,” and spiritual. According to Ana: The decisions are highly emotional (…). Rationally (in reference to a series of ethical attributes) you can be very clear about things, but then in practice I am driven by my impulses.
Lastly, it is relational, in a double sense. On the one hand, the discourse identifies various relationships in which reflection becomes necessary: the relationship with oneself, with other human beings, with non-human animals, and with the biosphere. “We must work because a sensitive intelligence must exist in which, by breaking the wall between I and other, we move beyond, to everything which surrounds us, whether it has life or not,” states José. On the other hand, there is a growing belief that managing the new paradigm must be done jointly or collectively, a position that mirrors Arendt’s tenets of political action (1958).
To have another kind of life, with the right means, with the day-to-day tools, and working in those (group) spaces where I think more community-based initiatives can arise, where you can work with groups you trust more. (….) All these things that come to us from the outside are things we accept, but which we could very easily make ourselves, if only a few people would get together to do it. The problem is the lack of awareness of what must be done that prevents this from happening.
The praxis of this discourse mainly manifests in two forms of resistance. The first is by acquiring conscience through education, participation in networks or other spaces, and contact with sources of inspiration in alternative values, lifestyles, and cognitive frameworks. For example, Pedro emphasizes a consciousness springing from knowledge acquired beyond conventional sources of information: “The more you know, the more you’re aware. (…) if you follow the people who are your reference points, then more and more you forget to keep yourself informed through the usual channels. (…) People you trust will tell you about where to go.”
The second is resistance through speech. Providing examples through actions is not enough, since many are eager to spread the word, discuss issues, and inform others (particularly via the Internet). This constitutes action in the sociopolitical arena, because “it isn’t enough to adopt ‘a personal ethic’ (José). The objective, rather, is to “raise awareness in others” (Santiago) or to broaden society’s knowledge and bring to an end to the ignorance in which people live. This is Pedro’s viewpoint when he recognizes that even though he has changed, what he would really like is to “influence the rest of society: if you change alone, and everything else stays the same, then things won’t work.”
However, “preaching the word” can easily lead to confrontations, especially when one has a radical temperament (Almudena). For example, Antoine would like to speak out more on these subjects, but he is worried that it would provoke interpersonal conflicts. This discourse carries the risk of being perceived as repressive in terms of power/violence and of therefore being met with resistance.
The informants prefer to tone down the pressure they exert so as not to jeopardize collective action, because they need others (people as reference points, networks, and support groups) to disseminate their ideas, and create viable alternatives. Our interviewees are members of and volunteers for various NGOs, trade unionists, project coordinators, founders of associations, social entrepreneurs, or members of cooperatives. Ana, for example, is a doctor of economics who has long been concerned with issues relating to poverty, development, and economic and social injustice. She collaborated in the creation of a consumer cooperative during her stay in Ramallah. On her return to Spain, she co-founded a project connected to the Palestinian cause, which later became an association.
Consequently, unlike the notion of individualistic power emphasized in the practical consciousness discourse, in the discursive consciousness power implies the harmonization of multiple interests and therefore cannot be exercised by the individual alone. As Arendt (1969) contends: “power corresponds to the human ability not just to act but to act in concert” (p. 44); furthermore, “without a people or a group there is no power” (p. 143).
Discussion and Conclusion
This article draws from Foucault and Arendt to use a concept of power as a lens that is non-dualistic, creative, productive, and “immanently present” in social relations (Franěk 2014). The findings, obtained from interviews with a purposive sample of activists in Spain during the financial crisis, help extend and enrich the existing consumer resistance movement literature that has traditionally been drawn from a view of power as domination.
Overall, we argue that the movement’s resistance is a project of ethical subjectification, that is, the construction of a new subject undertaking non-greedy relationships. Whereas some of the previous literature on consumer movements has emphasized how the movement is loosely connected by a shared opposition to the consumerist ideology, this article concludes that the movement also coalesces around a shared project of discursive resistance.
Ethical subjectification provides an overriding discourse from which different project identities may emerge. As such, subjectification precedes identity formation. Before consumers can resist by adopting an identity (Cherrier 2009), they must collectively create and internalize a discourse about what type of subjects they wish to be.
The “grand” discursive resistance project of ethical subjectification is achieved by means of “micro-emancipations” (Alvesson and Wilmott 1992), a myriad of everyday practices of the self that are exercised in many spaces. Such a view of practices as “life politics,” which is typical of other resistance movements (Chaudhury and Albinsson 2014; Dalpian, da Silveira, and Rossi 2014), actually merges the individual and collective dimensions of resistance. In doing so, the movement reestablishes a political realm, also invaded by an economic facet these days, which could be read as an example of Arendtian action (Arendt 1958).
Second, some existing scholarship has depicted a monolithic view of the adversary: it must be either corporations, other consumers, or capitalism. Yet this research advances a kaleidoscopic view in which blame is distributed. Our informants paint a multiple and mobile field of force relations, with no sovereign powers occupying center stage. The complexity of the problems cited may explain the difficulties in attributing blame to a single entity. Rather than blaming a “sovereign” and escaping or creating distance from it (Kozinets and Handelman 2004; Thompson and Coskuner-Balli 2007; Thompson 2004), the analyzed movement focuses on the discourse that sustains it and on the relations it produces. At its essence there lies a rejection, not of someone, but of something: a hegemonic “law of truth” (Foucault 1982, p. 781) or social normality (Arendt 1958) that forces individuals to become a certain type of subject.
Third, previous work on consumer resistance has found the “creative” dimension of the movement in, for instance, creating alternative sites (e.g. Chatzidakis, Maclaran, and Bradshaw 2012) or devising new practices (e.g. gleaming, cultural jamming) (e.g. Denigri-Knott, Zwick, and Schroeder 2006). We find that creativity also manifests as self-control. The movement, especially in practical consciousness discourse, proposes a repertoire of technologies of self to control and curb consumers’ appetites as a way of achieving liberation. As such, the discourse redefines the traditional concept of enkrateia as human well-being or flourishing, stressing the potential of these technologies for fostering inner growth and self-development.
Fourth, previous literature has predominantly focused on overt, discontinuous practices; especially in ethical consumption studies, these practices have traditionally revolved around buying or not buying. Our study unveils inconspicuous approaches to resistance, those explained in the discursive consciousness framing.
Moreover, the discourses are characterized by the continuous broadening of the repertoire, especially in the discursive consciousness type: it is perpetually reproducing, and never fully produced. The subject is at the heart of resistance, engaged in continuous self-transformation. The repertoire can be individually regenerated by a different combination of practices, with each member of the movement creating his or her own. The pluralism found at the individual level is a way of avoiding the normalizing and homogenizing effects of power.
One might wonder whether the pluralism observed in the adversarial and prognostic framing is a strength or a liability, given that frames perform the interpretative function of simplifying and condensing meanings to guide collective action (Benford and Snow 2000). The answer to this depends on one’s views of power and on what the movement’s objectives are. If power is understood as domination, pluralism may be seen as a liability. If consumers do not exercise a uniform vision of possible actions, they may be less effective in replacing the dominant social paradigm with another totalizing model. But if power is seen as a creative process, this pluralism of visions is enriching; a uniformity of discourses within the movement would jeopardize its possibilities of finding new ideas for change and growth (Follett 1920).
An implication emerges for future research in consumer resistance and emancipation. Previous studies have predominantly used behavioral approaches, focusing on explicit action, and have associated resistance mainly with avoiding or creating distance (Shaw and Newholm 2002; Thompson 2004). However, a complementary view of resistance and emancipation arises from a different view of power, one that uses indirect and covert practices with the aim of approaching the desired and liberated self. This suggests an opportunity to advance outside knowledge of the movement by widening the lens of power when choosing the domain/sites in which to study consumer resistance. Likewise, selecting different cultural contexts for analysis may help us enrich our understanding of the consumer resistance phenomenon, since the repertoire of resistance actions is clearly enshrined in cultural codes and traditions. The discourses analyzed in this study are produced at a particular cultural setting and historical context. Therefore, the findings cannot be generalized as the framings will certainly change over time and across settings, and they may be different in related social movements with other foci.
Future studies should examine the difficulties in carrying out the praxis of the discourses and how these difficulties may lead to a reconstruction of the discourse. Also, future research may address how consumers, sharing the “human condition,” explain how they deal with it. Finally, as discourses are multiple and being continuously produced, studies of resistant consumers in other cultural settings and of different profiles will enhance our understanding of the framings.
We conclude that incorporating the literature on power to will help build a worldview that is actually counter-hegemonic. Power over and power to are indeed two sides of the same coin. In the literature on consumer resistance, the side of power over has been emphasized, while the side of power to has remained concealed from view. Extending the discourses of consumer power and resistance to embrace this notion of power to is in itself a way of exercising power, as it will transform our knowledge (Foucault 1999). Consumer resistance movements could thus benefit from balancing both these views of power in their schemas and practices.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.