Anticonsumption Consciousness in Pursuit of Sustainability

From Strong to Weak Anticonsumption Involvement

The anticonsumption field of research aims to understand consumers who are totally against consumption and reject the entire consumption process in its different stages (acquisition, use and disposal of certain goods; Lee et al. 2011). With regard to the acquisition phase, anticonsumption leads to boycotts and buycotts (Klein, Smith, and John 2004), the purchase of green products (Connolly and Prothero 2008), the avoidance of symbolic concerns (Iyer and Muncy 2009), and the search for free goods by rummaging in waste bins and/or retrieving objects on the sidewalk (Brosius, Fernandez, and Cherrier 2013; Fernandez, Brittain, and Bennett 2011). In the use phase, consumers aim to reduce their energy consumption, stop using certain products and repair things they own to prolong the items’ lifetime and combat planned obsolescence (Crawford 2010; Packard 1962). Finally, in the dispossession phase, products may be put items back into circulation to give them a second life through practices that are sometimes collaborative (Belk 2014), such as gifting (Nelson, Rademacher, and Paek 2007), selling (Albinsson and Perera 2009; Denegri-Knott and Molesworth 2009), renting (Ballantine and Creery 2010; Ozanne and Ballantine 2010), and abandoning unused items and leaving them for other people (Corciolani and Dalli 2014; Roux and Guillard 2016).

Anticonsumption can be driven by personal motivations, sometimes in terms of opposition to people who are perceived as unaware (“I versus them” [Cherrier, Black, and Lee 2011] or “I versus we” [Iyer and Muncy 2009]) and/or by societal and ideological factors (Lee, Fernandez, and Hyman 2009). Because consumers are driven by different motivations, their practices, ideologies, and degree of involvement in anticonsumption vary considerably (Black 2010; Black and Cherrier 2010; Craig-Lees 2006; Zavestoski 2002), from hard-core to light anticonsumption (Basci 2014, p. 162). A first group consists of the most radical anticonsumption activists, who actively display their opposition to consumption (Hutter and Hoffman 2013; Zavestoski 2002). A second, generally less obtrusive and more restrained group is composed of consumers who have “anticonsumption attitudes” (Zavestoski 2002) and are motivated by voluntary simplicity (Ballantine and Creery 2010) and frugality (Lastovicka et al. 1999). They aim to consume less and to redefine their needs, sometimes in order to spend more time on personal and relational development. A final group is made up of people who engage in some anticonsumption practices, even if their motivations differ, due variously to the meaning given to consumption (Black and Cherrier 2010), “self-expression and individual freedom” or “instrumental constraints” (Cherrier, Black, and Lee 2011, p. 1763).

The focus of anticonsumption has thus largely been on ideologically convinced consumers (Lee et al. 2011), passionate commitment, and conscious choice (Kozinets, Handelman, and Lee 2010) and much less focus, as McDonagh and Prothero (2014, p. 1196) point out, on anticonsumption “at a broader societal level.” Consequently, little work has been done on conceptualizing the link to the anticonsumption behavior of consumers who do not openly subscribe to this philosophy of life but who might be perceived as belonging to it as a result of their practices in relation to goods. Cherrier (2010) has proposed such a link to anticonsumption by focusing on custodians who mobilize an ideology of opposition to newness without being affiliated with or belonging to anticonsumption groups. In the same spirit of focusing on the reasons for being against consumption (Chatzidakis and Lee 2013), one reason that applies to many people is waste aversion. Being against wastage, or products’ loss of utility (Arkes 1996), ultimately amounts to being against consumption—in other words, opposing the destruction of products and/or their value. For example, consumers may prefer to rent something that they anticipate having low utility (vs. unused utility if purchased), even though they do not identify as being anticonsumption (Arkes 1996; Bolton and Alba 2012; Chatzidakis and Lee 2013). Again, studies on anticonsumption and measures related to anticonsumption have taken little account of wastage; when it is taken into account, it is through an item (e.g., “‘Waste not, want not’ is a philosophy I follow”; Iyer and Muncy 2009, p. 164) that ignores lived experience and its manifestations. Nevertheless, the fight against wastage is one of the major public policy challenges in terms of sustainability.

Public Policy in Pursuit of Sustainability: From Waste to Wastage

The United Nations’ 17 Sustainable Development Goals constitute a worldwide call to transform society by 2030 (no poverty, sustainable cities and communities, responsible consumption and production, etc.). One of the goals for public policy pertains to waste. The implementation of the waste reduction agenda has implications in terms of economics (various recycling activities), society (the creation of jobs in an effort to fight poverty), and the environment (greenhouse gas emissions reduction) (Le Blanc 2015).

With growing awareness of the environmental crisis, public policy has deployed considerable resources for waste management throughout the waste hierarchy: disposal, recovery, recycling, waste prevention, and reuse (Hultman and Corvellec 2012). This greater awareness combined with technical progress is producing net benefits for society as a whole. Because waste policy interventions have significant financial impacts in contexts in which public budgets are constrained, public policy has made the major issue of waste prevention the top priority (Le Blanc 2015; Prothero et al. 2011). Waste prevention is the shared responsibility of public organizations by means of awareness campaigns, but it is also the responsibility of individuals. Waste prevention involves acting on the process that leads to the creation of loss of utility (i.e., wastage; Arkes 1996)—in other words, acting on the practices of acquisition and dispossession. Waste and wastage are two related but distinct terms imbued with considerable subjectivity, because they call into question the notions of (future) utility and need. Several practices are involved: for example, the accumulation of objects at home may be viewed as wastage, because they are currently of no use to anyone, but they could be of great use (Cherrier 2010; Cherrier and Ponnor 2010; Guillard and Pinson 2012). However, accumulated items become waste if they are thrown away (Guillard 2017; Marcoux 2001). Moreover, giving clothes to a charity to free up space so that new clothes can be bought, as often occurs among consumers (Parguel, Lunardo, and Benoit-Moreau 2017), is a practice that can be experienced as or interpreted as a waste of money or wastage of natural resources if what is newly purchased is not based on a real need. However, items given away cannot (yet) be considered waste when they acquire a second life in another person’s home.

In academic work, wastage is viewed as an aversion (Arkes 1996), a reason for acting/not acting that studies on disposition behavior have reduced to, variously, a “black box,” conditioning, a norm—that is, putting products back into circulation is presented in the media and socially constructed as not wasting them (Albinsson and Perera 2009; Denegri-Knott and Molesworth 2009; Türe 2014). Practices related to donating items, then, are not problematized in terms of wastage and sustainability. Brosius, Fernandez, and Cherrier (2013) raise this question in their research: gleaning discarded items on the sidewalk is a sustainable practice, provided that these items do not then accumulate in a closet, attic, or cellar (p. 13). Thus, there is a gap between being generally averse to wastage (Arkes 1996) and being aware of the extent of one’s wastage, just as there is in believing oneself to be environmentally friendly while engaging unsustainable practices. Prothero et al. (2011, p. 32) raise this problem: “Further research should address the attitude–behavior gap within the context of reduced consumption, with an emphasis on understanding why this gap persists for those who articulate support for the ideals of sustainability. In turn, this knowledge could guide subsequent research on the most effective public policies to encourage reduced consumption.”

As a result, existing research does not reveal how consumers experience or are aware of wastage in practices pertaining to products for which they have little or no further use. In their findings, Brosius, Fernandez, and Cherrier (2013, p. 11) analyze the fact that “increasing awareness of waste…can lead people to want to share.” How is this awareness manifested in contexts other than annual inorganic collection? Studies on consciousness provide an initial theoretical framework for understanding its workings.

From Consciousness to Anticonsumption Consciousness

The concept of consciousness has many meanings and distinct manifestations, though these differences are mainly of degree (Solms 1997). The first degree of consciousness is self-awareness, or being conscious of oneself: this is defined by interiority through thoughts, feelings, passions, emotions, sensations, states of mind, and so on (Rosenthal 1986). Interiority applies to what is private, hidden, and invisible and enables one to define one’s “self.” Second is consciousness of the world: the philosophers Husserl and, subsequently, Sartre (1939) defined consciousness as lived experience, though not only in terms of interiority. It is a relationship, a directedness toward something or other. Consciousness is that relation of transcendence, the gap between the subject and the object, without being absorbed into either (Cherrier 2010). Third is moral consciousness, defined as understanding the consequences of one’s actions for the community and future generations (McGregor 2006). Moral consciousness is awareness of what one should or should not do in accordance with principles that respect others and oneself above purely personal interests.

Consciousness, whatever its level, is often studied through its manifestations. In the field of marketing, the manifestations of consciousness have been examined through various constructs such as health consciousness (Mai and Hoffmann 2015) or environmental consciousness (Ellen, Wiener, and Cobb-Walgren 1991). Some authors have introduced the philosophical concept of mindfulness (Bahl et al. 2016), which expresses the ability to observe what happens within (e.g., thoughts, emotions, bodily sensations) or outside oneself and to accept it in its reality without passing judgment. Mindfulness could facilitate understanding of “clear vision of one’s wasteful practices” or “openness to behavioral changes and innovations that reduce waste” (Bahl et al. 2016, p. 204).

Studies on mindfulness raise the question of whether consumers have a “clear vision” of the consequences of their practices in terms of wastage. The present research introduces the concept of anticonsumption consciousness to capture consumers’ level of awareness of the wastage generated by their day-to-day practices with regard to objects at the end stage of consumption. After presenting the context in which the research was conducted (France), I then use a qualitative study to examine the different manifestations of anticonsumption consciousness.

Context: Waste and Wastage in France

The global trash problem does not spare Europe—and, in particular, France, where the amount of waste continues to rise: French households produce 31 million tons of waste annually (equivalent to 458 kilos per person), of which 15 million tons are household garbage and 17 million tons go to waste collection centers (ADEME 2017) ¹ . The public authorities encourage the transition from a linear economy (in which materials are extracted and products are subsequently manufactured, consumed, and disposed of) to a circular economy, an element necessary for sustainable development (Guillard and Roux 2014). Various systems have been introduced to this end (e.g., containers to collect unused clothing or electrical waste, sorting of domestic waste). Imbued with the idea of circularity in their practices regarding objects, waste-conscious consumers try out various methods to avoid wastage, such as gratiferias (free markets), flea markets, book boxes, gleaning, and so on (Fernandez, Brittain, and Bennett 2011; Roux and Guillard, 2016). A variety of commercial and noncommercial platforms help consumers connect with others engaging in these activities (e.g., Le Bon Coin, Freecycle). The circulation of secondhand goods has been publicized and presented as “virtuous” because of its environmental, social, and economic benefits.

The aim of public policy was initially to reduce waste (Boy et al. 2012). However, public policies need to go further in reducing waste if they are to achieve the objectives set by the European Union Directive targeting a 50% reduction in landfill by 2025. With the French energy transition legislation for green growth enacted on August 17, 2015 (law no. 2015-992), the circular economy passed an important milestone: the legislation’s Title IV is “Lutter contre les gaspillages et promouvoir l’économie circulaire” (“Combat wastage and promote the circular economy”). Public policies are evolving, in terms of the semantics used, with the shift from “waste management” to “wastage management” given the significant difference between the two terms in French (déchet and gaspillage). To retain this distinction in English, when appropriate, these terms have been translated as “waste” and “wastage” (or “wasting” and “wastefulness”), respectively.

The fight against waste is even becoming unified across sectors. Food wastage is highly publicized in France (Soyeux 2010). The passing of a law on February 11, 2016, forbidding distributors to return unsold products unsuitable for consumption and encouraging them to donate them to charities reinforced this concern. The wastage of clothing also gets a great deal of media coverage: “fast fashion” through capsule collections has been criticized, along with the 30 kilos of clothing purchased each year by consumers (Bayle 2017).

Thus, by addressing wastage, public policies make waste prevention an essential part of the circular economy. They do so by using communication as a strong regional action to support awareness and change of practices (ADEME 2016). A French program for the prevention of waste was then adopted, including initiatives such as “zero wastage, zero-waste territories” or organizations such as “Zero Waste France” to accompany preventive action by communities and citizens. In 2018, Zero Waste France launched its “nothing new challenge,” which involves attempting to buy as few new products as possible for a year and turning to alternatives such as purchasing items secondhand, renting, borrowing, and so on. However, to help raise consumers’ awareness or consciousness of what they are wasting, it is still essential to determine whether and how consciousness of wastage is manifested, especially with regard to material objects. I do so by means of a qualitative study.

Weak Anticonsumption Consciousness: Lack of Knowledge About Wastage

Consumers may have weak anticonsumption consciousness because their knowledge of waste is strongly influenced by their education and by the media. In France, the extensive media coverage of wastage mostly associates it with a particular type of action: throwing items away (Block et al. 2016; Soyeux 2010). I found this idea that wastage equals throwing things away among all the respondents. However, they used this word to describe other practices and products: “buying something I don’t need” (Justine, Laure, Janine, and Paule); “buying things I’ve got already” (Michel); “If people are in need of it, like food, it’s wastage, but for face creams it doesn’t matter, nobody needs face cream, so it’s not wastage” (Céline); “There’s so little of it [decoration] that it doesn’t count as wastage. Where I do waste things is clothing” (Anne); “Everything here in the attic isn’t wastage, it’s not worth anything” (Christine); “It’s always linked to something that is more important than that. I waste money, food, time, but not makeup. It doesn’t break my heart to throw my jar of face cream, but, money, yes” (Victoire). Awareness of wastage thus depends on the meanings people attribute to it.

Certain categories of objects (e.g., books) or practices (e.g., the accumulation of possessions) are not or very rarely associated with wastage. People may accumulate things “so as not to waste them” (Cherrier and Ponnor 2010, p. 12). Their thinking goes: “keeping/accumulating = not throwing away = not wasting.” Yet items nonetheless have a “transferable value” (Türe 2014, p. 59), enabling them to help or please other people. Marie says she pays attention to the environment and waste; she goes regularly to the dump, sorts her packaging, and uses low-energy light bulbs. Despite her environmental consciousness, she keeps things; however, unlike other people, who know what they might do with them (Cherrier 2010), she does not have a clear plan for the items she accumulates and does not consider finding an alternative use for them. Such people keep things for security (Cherrier and Ponnor 2010) in the belief that “they could be useful someday” or simply out of habit: “Many of the unsustainable and wasteful behaviors in which consumers engage are a result of habit” (Bahl et al. 2016). Keeping things out of habit may, like other consumer behaviors, be below the threshold of consciousness, driven by the unconscious pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of pain.

If there were charities that were in favor recovering all these things, yes, it would be wasteful, but this isn’t wasting. Because what do you do if you don’t keep them? You put them in the trash—that would be waste, so here there’s no waste. This juice extractor is terrible, it’s brand new, it’s huge, it’s too big. There’s no room for it in the kitchen, so I can’t use it. Then it has to be cleaned everywhere, it’s awful. It cost me 100 euros, that bothers me a bit.…Rather than sell it at Le Bon Coin, ² I’ll give it to the children. In the meantime, the children are still young. The risk of keeping it is that when the children might be interested, they’ll say, “Wait, you’ve seen that thing, it’s a dinosaur!” If this happens, I’ll throw it out. Because it will be more than outdated.…They’ll make extraordinary things in the future, much easier to use and clean. So, well, you buy something, you keep it for other people, but it may be for nothing in the end.…But hey, we’ll see. (Marie)

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Marie’s cellar.

Bertille says she is concerned about the environment: she gardens, she “does not use pesticides,” she has had her insulation redone to consume less energy, and so on. She is, like Marie, in the phase prior to awareness of the consequences of her actions. Her testimony, which evolves in the course of the interview, reveals her ambiguity with regard to accumulation. Her definition of wastage is “buying and accumulating things when you don’t need them.” Because the objects accumulated in her cellar include both purchases and various inheritances or gifts, they are not viewed as wastage, though this does not strictly match her definition. For Bertille, and also for Christine, it is not newness that they reject as custodian consumers (Cherrier 2010), but buying things that would meet the same need as those that already have been accumulated. Bertille’s concept of waste, however, changed during the interview. This shift may have been due to the presence of the interviewer. Meyer (1995) explains that during the interview, a dynamic of subject–researcher interaction plays out, which can affect what is being studied. The interviewee may thus speak to different people during the interview, such as the researcher or other people present or in the vicinity—in this instance, Bertille’s husband Michel. He has a strong tendency to keep everything (like Christine’s husband) and stops Bertille getting rid of anything. She says that he keeps everything: “I respect him, that’s just the way he is.” He left before the end of the interview. After his departure, Bertille mouthed the word “wastage” in reference their accumulation of items. It was a tentative shift without any immediate indication that she intends changing her practice.

All of these things all over the house, they’re not really wasteful. It would be wasteful buying and accumulating things when you don’t need them. I haven’t bought much, I was given a lot of things, I’ve cleared at least four houses, so I have lots of things. [After her husband’s departure] If one thinks, yes…keeping things, there’s no point, maybe someone else would like them. Sometimes I tell him [her husband] it could be useful to people who need it. It’s true that when you think about, it’s a bit of a waste. But I don’t really know who to give them to, what I can do with them. It could be useful, but it’s damaged, and for now they’re here. (Bertille)

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Accumulated possessions in Paule’s 18-square-meter apartment.

In short, some consumers have low awareness of the waste that their practices generate, coupled with low (Gérald, Céline, and Marina) or higher (Marie, Bertille, Michel, Christine, Gérard, and Chantal) environmental sensitivity. They have little in interest in anticonsumption and often purchase new products. These people may therefore be called “unconscious” in Piaget’s (1974) sense of the term; in other words, they are at the first level in the microgenesis of knowledge, preceding the following level of conceptualization (i.e., putting ideas into words) and, thus, awareness, which in turn leads to action.

Becoming Conscious of Anticonsumption Through Experience of Wastage

The expression “becoming aware” desubstantializes consciousness: it is no longer a state but a process, movement, progress. To “realize” thus demands an effort: paying attention to reality. A moment of reality that awakens one to something is called an “event.” An event is a sudden change in reality that makes one become aware of a truth hitherto ignored, repressed, or forgotten. Consumers may thus become aware, through personal and/or exogenous events, that their practices are not as virtuous, in terms of wastage, as they appear.

The repetition and frequency of certain responsible environmental practices, such as giving things away or leaving them on the sidewalk (Brosius, Fernandez, and Cherrier 2013), along with the quantity of things involved in the various practices, can lead people to question these practices. Indeed, containers of unused clothes, like garbage cans, distance people from waste (De Coverly et al. 2008). People therefore lose consciousness of the consequences of their practices, because the items are hidden. It is precisely this disorder, mixture, and symbolic pollution (Dion, Sabri, and Guillard 2014) that is revealed in the light of day and in the eyes of those who want to see: the practice of buying and not using things. Recollection of such an experience makes Anne question the origin of waste—in other words, her own consumption, which she gradually realizes far exceeds her needs:

Take a dress I wore once. It was already a waste of money…and the dress, yeah, when I don’t know what happens to it…like the Le Relais ³ clothes containers, we ultimately don’t know what they do with it.…Is it reused? Is it turned into rags? I have something unfashionable—or worse, something I never wore—well, I chuck it into the container for Le Relais, it’s convenient.…It’s at this point…I say to myself, “I’m wasting it.” I say that because in fact, one day, I saw a pile of clothes bags in front of the containers that were vomiting clothes.…What’s more, they were mixed with garbage, it was disgusting.…The clothes, they were done for, really ruined…and then I realized that ultimately I do this too…I answer for this.…When I see everything I chuck into the Le Relais containers, I say to myself, “I’ve got to think about this a bit more,” that I should be less impulsive about my clothes especially. I want something so much I go and buy it. But no, it doesn’t work like that. (Anne)

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 3.

Unused clothing that Valentine has prepared to place in a charity container.

It may be useful to somebody and maybe it will allow me to buy what I need or suits me more, and I give it away anyway, I give, but…it’s still a waste, because you put out something that’s good, but basically so as to buy something else that has the same function. It feels like you didn’t waste because you gave it away, but that’s a way of not feeling guilty. It keeps me from feeling guilty, but I think it’s wasting things. (Valentine)

Exogenous events may also generate awareness (Albinsson, Wolf, and Kopf 2010). An event often mentioned by respondents that brings about a sudden change in reality is clearing the home of a deceased relative or of an elderly person who moves into a care institution. It is a difficult and painful emotional experience (Guillard 2017; Marcoux 2001). The children/bereaved often take precautions with regard to the possessions of the deceased/elderly: they try to reuse them by giving them to relatives or people they trust or give them a second life by donating them to charities. However, the number of things accumulated or the lack of time may also result in people no longer having the energy to find potential recipients. As they put these things, both old and new, into the garbage, regardless of their condition, they become aware of the wastefulness and uselessness of keeping, accumulating, and storing items and, ultimately, of buying them in the first place. This experience can lead them to consume less and become less materialistic (Richins 2004). Evelyne, who was taught by her parents not to waste things, threw out a lot of their possessions when she cleared their house:

I threw everything out. Everything my parents had accumulated and stored. I had the feeling of huge wastage, enormous, enormous. You no longer think, and then, then you throw it out, you can’t do it any more, you can’t do it. You’re so tired, so psychologically worn out.…You close your eyes…it’s then that you become aware of the human condition, that you are only a very small part of a family chain, and that…you take nothing with you, it’s pointless keeping a lot of stuff.…Ultimately, what wastage. But in the end, it enables you to put things in perspective. And I often think, “But it’s pointless spending money on this”; finally, it’s very clear, it makes me consume much less.…Yes, again this aspect, getting more to the basics.…It makes me less materialistic. (Evelyne)

Anticonsumption Consciousness Through Greater Self-Knowledge

Better knowledge of oneself embraces knowledge both of one’s own needs and of one’s personal competences. Knowing more about one’s needs is a learning process based on trial and error. Thus, for some consumers, finding that an item no longer has any utility may be “inevitable” at some point in their lives, especially when they are looking for the product that suits them best. This is the case, for example, for makeup and beauty products. Laure has the same lifestyle as Valentine: she says she pays attention to the environment (she rides a bike or uses public transport, she sorts household waste, she refills products rather than buying new ones, etc.). Having tried numerous products and wasted them, she now knows what suits her and no longer buys impulsively.

I used to buy beauty products that I didn’t use. But not now. I pay attention to what I buy; I know myself better. I know better what I need—it’s the same for clothes. I buy more but quality. It’s due to age I think. For example, I found a moisturizer that suits me well, and that’s the only one I use. (Laure)

She is nevertheless in a transitional phase: she no longer has student status within the reproduction of transmitted education and is in the process of moving to an independent lifestyle (Van Gennep 1960). Transitional phases lead to experimentation in practices around products, thus leading to wastage.

Cosmetic creams are like clothes, I have too many of them. It’s a logic I’m trying to escape and not to buy any more. When you see everything that I’ve accumulated [Figure 4]…This afternoon, I bought a big jar of coconut oil. I want to use a healthier product, which will last longer, change the habit in fact. I don’t feel guilty about money if it allows me to change my habits and return to basics. If, on the other hand, in three weeks’ time I find I’m not using it, that will make me feel guilty.…For clothes, two or three days ago, I made the resolution not to buy any more clothing at H&M, especially till the end of October [this interview was conducted on September 21]. It’s not huge, as a resolution, but I hope to stick to it. (Victoire)

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 4.

Purchased but unused cosmetic products in three separate cupboards (Victoire).

It makes me sad because people are programmed to consume, and life is constantly creating unhappy people who are incapable of finding within themselves what makes them happy. Everything can be of use sooner or later. If I don’t know what I’m able to do with something, I don’t have it. For example, plumbing. I don’t know how to do it, so there are no pipes here. Everything else—electricity, painting, yes, I know that. It’s funny, you get other uses from something and it’s odd to say: What can I do with it? It is innate. It’s within anyone’s reach. You see this old table, it has two wheels, it’s cheap. And hey, it becomes my sewing workshop. People will buy it like that, an IKEA table with casters, it costs a lot of money. That’s completely ridiculous. You see here, these drills, they all have their use [Figure 5]. I’ll take a part from this one because on the most recent one, it broke. And hey, I make one out of another. It makes you happy to be like that, to make something from another product, because you don’t have any needs and you don’t waste anything. It is a game not to waste and not to buy, at least as much as possible, where I live, it’s inborn” (Laurence).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 5.

Laurence’s drills.

Anticonsumption Consciousness Through Moral Awareness

Moral consciousness (or conscience) is the characteristic of the human mind that spontaneously makes moral judgments. It is the faculty that each person possesses for judging his or her own actions as well as those of other people (McGregor 2006). Through moral consciousness, people distinguish good from bad. Thus, the idea of moral consciousness is closely linked to that of responsibility. Responsibility is what makes a person, at the moral level, a subject. It involves being aware of one’s actions, of “knowing what one does”: first, recognizing oneself as the author of the act, and then being able to anticipate its consequences, both for oneself and for others. Laurence, despite her social status, defines herself as a “gleaner” (a person who recovers things from garbage cans); she pays close attention to the environment and does not waste anything, even though she is aware that “we’re wasteful. We’re irresponsible. I too am involved in all this wastefulness.” She feels responsible for future generations. She elaborates on this idea with reference to the practice of accumulating useless objects.

It’s good to know how to keep things and just what is needed. This way you live well. You have selected, you have made your choice. And you keep what will personify you, that’s all. I regularly sort things, and in particular, I’m careful not to fill an empty space by buying things.…Today, we no longer have the right to waste things, to keep tons of stuff, to consume any old thing, anything just for the sake of buying.…We do not have the right, for our children, so as not to leave them a burden to be thrown away and because we think, what a planet of waste for the future generations, it is [long pause]…immoral. (Laurence)

For Bergson (1919), “Conscience is a link between what has been and what will be, a bridge between the past and the future.…Remembering what no longer is, anticipating what is not yet, this is the main function of consciousness” (pp. 5–6). Conscience is what makes it possible to choose within the vast quantity of facts, memories, images and emotions, by obeying laws of conservation and adaptation. Monique wants to remain faithful to certain rules that have been passed on to her, particularly those pertaining to waste. Like many people born during and just after World War II (Janine, Chantal, and Michel in particular), she does so out of respect for past generations, those who lived through the war and who suffered from shortages (Albinsson, Wolf, and Kopf 2010). Monique explains,

We are children of the war. This medical instrument [for enemas] is impossible to throw out, and yet it serves no purpose. I’m from a generation where we didn’t throw away something like that. It was hard to find and expensive. If we went to the doctor, we didn’t throw out what he gave us. To throw it away would be to disrespect people who did not have it or couldn’t afford to go to the doctor. No, I cannot, it’s rooted in me. As a result, because it’s impossible for me to waste things.…I was not brought up like that, wasting things, buying to excess. And we must not forget the past, what some people have experienced, and one never knows what tomorrow will bring. (Monique)

Summary

These findings show that consumers, with greater or lesser sensitivity to the environment, subscribe in varying degrees to anticonsumption: their differing awareness of the waste they generate has consequences for the environmental sustainability of their practices. One group of consumers (Céline, Gérald, Marina, Estelle, and Paule) have low sensitivity to the environment, in the sense that even if they sort their waste (“because the bins are there and intended for that”), they content themselves with that and do nothing further. Their weak environmental consciousness is coupled with little awareness of their wastage, leading then to adopt unecological practices such as accumulating items and buying new products that often meet no particular need other than immediate gratification. A second group, consisting of those who are concerned about the environment, are aware of their own wastage and of wastage in general (Victoire, Laure, Valentine, Anna, Evelyne, and Anne): their different forms of experience of wastage and their greater self-knowledge make them want to change practices that are harmful to the environment. They grope their way along, aiming to change certain practices (e.g., buying, keeping, repairing) without always knowing how to proceed. Unlike the first group, these consumers regularly question their needs and the meaning of purchasing products and, in the process, become increasingly opposed to consumption. A third group is made up of consumers who have a fairly high sensitivity to the environment that is reflected in their practices, such as regularly going to the dump to dispose of trash, donating clothing to charities for recycling or reuse, and so on. These consumers (Christine, Bertille, Michel, Gérard, Marie, Justine, Anne, Janine, and Chantal) have a strong aversion to wastage as a result of their education but often have low awareness of how they accumulate objects. The fourth and final group comprises environmentally aware consumers who have a strong conscience, which leads them to be strongly anticonsumption. Some of them (Michel, Bertille, Gérard, Janine, and Chantal) are greatly concerned about past and/or future generations, but, in terms of their practices, they may be distinguished from those who, like Laurence or Monique, have abandoned environmentally unsustainable practices and keep only those items that will be passed on (Price, Arnould, and Curasi 2000), buy as little as possible, and make do with what they already have. Environmental consciousness coupled with anticonsumption consciousness can lead to practices that are more environmentally sustainable as well as to heightened opposition to consumption.

Implications for Public Policy

These findings raise issues for public policy: How can it combat, reduce, or reclaim “waste” (Lee et al. 2011)? Addressing wastage is more difficult for public policy when it is aimed at people who subscribe to anticonsumption passively and do not support it openly because, by definition, it is more the concern of local or even personal initiatives that are not public and receive little or no media coverage. Different policy initiatives could be targeted toward certain cohorts on the basis of level of anticonsumption consciousness.

First, for those with a low level of anticonsumption consciousness, it would seem that public policy could communicate better about wastefulness. The results show that consumers do not have a clear idea of what wastage actually involves, and they commonly believe that it means “buying/throwing away products without using them.” Yet keeping these products can be (and often is) a source of waste that most consumers are unaware of. Public actors could thus endeavor to change consumers’ beliefs in this respect and broaden their understanding to make way for different representations around accumulation. Public policy could therefore focus its communication on the wasting of objects or even organize conferences on the circular economy and on wastage targeted at the general public through so-called “Universités Populaires” (i.e., public adult education centers supported by cities and regions in France; e.g., http://upc.michelonfray.fr). Again, because the relation to wastage is a value often transmitted by education (Packard 1962), it would undoubtedly be relevant to communicate on this topic by inducing respect for past generations, who have experienced times of shortage, and not solely the “present-for-us” or the “future-for-others” (Brosius, Fernandez, and Cherrier 2013).

Second, such communication could be intensified for consumers who have little or no awareness of wastage by holding events that demonstrate the accumulation of objects to raise awareness. Given that introducing a system can make people aware of wastage (Brosius, Fernandez, and Cherrier 2013), it would make sense for municipalities to set up collections implemented by people on a local basis. These strategies, whose objective is to influence behavior, make depositing objects on the sidewalk the solution involving the least effort, because it is right outside one’s home. These devices lead people to become aware of what they possess by seeing the various things others deposit. Public authorities could organize annual events along the lines of “Journée de non-gaspillage” (“No Wastage Day”); such events would be based on the local circulation of objects and could provide an opportunity to establish social links. All these measures could be supported by activist anticonsumption groups with a view to encouraging people to think more clearly about their acquisition practices, because disposition behavior is an indirect way of acting on purchasing. Public policy could also endeavor to improve the aesthetics of the containers in which unused objects are collected. Consumers are reluctant to take their appliances to the containers provided for this purpose, often because they do not know what to do with them and/or want to know what becomes of them (e.g., Gérard, Michel, Evelyne). Moreover, offering anonymous places so that low-income people have free access to unused objects could enable such items to circulate better. Gleaning is a stigmatizing practice, especially among people in precarious circumstances (Fernandez, Brittain, and Bennett 2011; Guillard and Roux 2014); people who deposit objects on the sidewalk are partly motivated by the idea of “coming to the aid” of others, with the beneficiaries being viewed as “poor” (Roux and Guillard 2016). Given this stigma, the circulation of objects does not then take place or is carried out unsatisfactorily, even though it is something that is desired at both ends of the social spectrum. This system, in a bottom-of-the-pyramid approach (Prahalad 2005), could be used to give the lowest-income class the opportunity to stock up or even to “do business” by selling the items deposited (or their components), thereby enabling them to enter the formal economy, as the ragpickers once did in France (Guillard and Roux 2014).

Third, this research shows that one of the manifestations of anticonsumption consciousness is better knowledge of oneself and one’s skills. Many respondents mentioned the desire to learn how to repair things, restore them, or find another use for them, which they had not necessarily considered. Because they make evident their wish to “make things,” learning is a way of augmenting their core skills and restoring their empowerment (Shankar, Cherrier, and Canniford 2006). Yet the respondents often do not know how to do so or what to do. Public organizations (such as town halls in France) promote on their websites the circulation of goods but say little about acquiring skills through the reuse of people’s surplus possessions. The public authorities therefore have a role to play in supporting consumers’ desire to emancipate themselves from the “throw out everything” approach. It would thus be in the public interest to develop and promote organizations that help individuals exercise their talents. Through interactive anticonsumption practices such as time banking (Basci 2014), Les Accorderies enables people to exchange their time (one hour given to someone = one hour received from someone else) or other facilities for repair services. Similar places include Repair Cafes, which are funded in France largely by public organizations and disseminate ideas about consumption practices. Indeed, the goal is both to learn how to repair things and to collaborate with other people on activities relating to anticonsumption. Such institutions are not sufficient in number, however, to satisfy the demand from people who want to curtail their wastage and are eager for more meaning in their lives. By providing support, policy makers can leverage people’s need to belong and connect to others to address wastage issues.

Finally, this article shows that some people have an anticonsumption moral consciousness and act on behalf of the well-being of others. They are often people who want to help; they are aware that “living well means not burdening future generations” (Laurence and Monique), and they are opposed to the unnecessary purchase of material objects. Public policies designed to help clear out the homes of the most vulnerable could connect morally conscious anticonsumers with these populations; they could provide help within an ethics of care rather than the market logic followed by home organizers (Belk, Yong Seo, and Li 2007). This public service would seem indispensable for elderly people who do not have the resources (financial, psychological, or physical) to clear out their homes themselves. Their possessions are then thrown out on their death, thus generating waste and a feeling of wastage on the part of those responsible for the task. Helping people in need of managing their material possessions could thus constitute a public service.