— Irfanullah Farooqi Consumption has been integral to human societies for as long as one can remember. However, given its umbilical link to production, as human beings moved towards a more complex and expanded scale of production, consumption too acquired new layers. When we speak of consumer culture, we are referring to a phenomenon that, relatively speaking, is not so old. It signifies an extraordinary spread of a way of life oriented towards promised luxury, abundance, pleasure, and happiness. While extravagance and consumption of luxuries existed in the ancient world, it was only in the 18th century that these traits went beyond society's elites. Riding on the spectacular success of economic and political revolutions, the modern age gave birth to a class of consumers driven by an excitement for the ‘new’. By the time we get to the post-war western world, a consumerist way of life – one characterised by an unquenchable thirst for more – has firmly taken hold. In his comprehensive and celebrated essay “Consumer Culture: An Introduction”, published in the journal Theory, Culture & Society in 1983, Mark Featherstone rightly points out, “the consumer way of life with its promise of abundance, luxury, unlimited pleasure and happiness does have a peculiarly compulsive quality ..” Let us look at how this consumer culture is connected to globalisation and in what ways the process of globalisation intensifies its grip across countries worldwide. Development of a ‘global culture’ Globalisation was initially understood and explained as an economic phenomenon. Early deliberations revolved around factors such as: — Free movement of goods and services. — The emergence of a new global economic order. — The internationalisation of trade and finance. — The growing power of transnational corporations. — The enhanced role of international economic institutions. In short, globalisation was all about intensification and extension of economic relations across the world. However, subsequent reflections on globalisation, particularly with respect to its politics, began to look into its impact in the domain of culture, especially in relation to the Global South. With production catering to a global market, globalisation thrives on the creation of what critical theorist Herbert Marcuse aptly called “false needs”. In cultural terms, globalisation refers to the ways in which cultural flows expand and accelerate across the world. In this respect, one can also think about the development of 'global culture'. But critics of globalisation refuse to be impressed by this narrative and draw our attention to how it often results in an undesirable standardisation of culture. George Ritzer’s widely cited book, The McDonaldization of Society: An Investigation Into the Changing Character of Contemporary Social Life, offers an insightful reading of this homogenising trend in the realm of food consumption. Globalisation’s association with and promotion of consumerism can be rightly understood by looking at the massive proliferation of media during the past two-three decades. Initially, it was considered a positive development because transnational media networks were expected to inform people about the real issues and concerns of remote and marginalised cultures. This awareness, it was held, would prove vital for desirable human solidarities and a transnational sense of belonging. Over time, however, as media ownership became increasingly concentrated in the hands of big capitalists, its role largely changed. It is found largely invested in shaping our identities and desires. The massive advertisement industry has successfully reduced us to consumers by persuading us to buy in excess and discard way more often than needed. Does globalisation thrive on “false needs”? In its pursuit of promoting uniform and standardised consumption patterns across the world, globalisation links consumption - almost as a matter of principle beyond subsistence - with happiness. Buying becomes the primary marker of achievement. Historian William Leach, in his 1993 classic book, Land of Desire: Merchants, Power, and the Rise of a New American Culture, observes: “The cardinal features of this culture were acquisition and consumption as the means of achieving happiness; the cult of the new; the democratisation of desire; and money value as the predominant measure of all value in society.” Every brand store has glass walls with hundreds and thousands of items on display. One need not even step inside the store to be enticed. The idea behind display – usually on a grand scale – is to unleash the consumer within us, to activate an irresistible temptation to possess. Notwithstanding the complicity of globalisation in reducing us to consumers, the process has also indirectly led to some awareness of this very pathology, or what Walter Benjamin called the logic of “mechanical reproduction”. With production catering to a global market, globalisation thrives on the creation of what critical theorist Herbert Marcuse aptly called “false needs”. Advertisements play an exceptionally crucial role in accelerating the adoption of these needs across sections of society. A good advertisement works by evoking the enchanting ‘could be’ by acquiring the product. In one of Nokia’s early advertisements, actress Priyanka Chopra signs off with a statement that captures it rather well: “It is not just a phone. It is who we are”. Apple iPhone offers a perfect example of how the desire to acquire works through complex registers of achievement, peer pressure, and necessity. The desire to buy the latest iPhone on the day it was launched – something that kept hundreds of people camped or queued outside the Apple stores the night before – remains inexplicable despite being promisingly theorised. This pathological brand consciousness keeps us perpetually driven towards having and, to borrow from Erich Fromm, keeps us distant from being. The terms of everyday life get more and more determined by what we have, and not by who we essentially are. In fact, consumerism in its advanced formats links ‘who we are’ to ‘what we have’. Is globalisation just about consumerism? Scholars of globalisation generally agree that it is a contradictory process. For instance, if we look at globalisation’s impact on our society, it has contributed to both prosperity and poverty, led to both creation and loss of jobs, broought awareness of women’s rights and, at the same time, facilitated commodification of their bodies, caused environmental degradation, and also paved the way for massive transnational environmental movements. Against this backdrop, the answer to the question, ‘is globalisation just about consumerism’ is a qualified yes. There is no denying that globalisation has played a pivotal role in expediting consumerism by democratising the desire to consume. What was earlier associated with upper classes has now become a perceived ‘necessity’ across other classes as well. Brands perpetually stir our status consciousness and often succeed in convincing us about the sheer need for commodities under the guise of desirable upgrades. To an extent, globalisation has also been instrumental in putting in place an idea and philosophy of progress defined by the endless replacement of the old with the new. Its success lies in convincing us that the iPhone 17 is new until the iPhone 18 is mentioned in tech news. Notwithstanding the complicity of globalisation in reducing us to consumers, the process has also indirectly led to some awareness of this very pathology, or what Walter Benjamin called the logic of “mechanical reproduction”. There are transnational movements and campaigns for the marginalised that are only possible because of the interconnectedness globalisation has facilitated. Across several nations of the world, there have been concerted attempts at not letting market forces succeed in making people recognise themselves through commodities. While it requires no genius to identify the multiple ways in which globalisation exacerbates consumerism, what is needed is a perceptive reading of the phenomenon to understand the complexities of its impact and influence. As globalisation paves the way for the market to turn citizens into consumers, societies grapple with new sets of questions pertaining to equality, rights, freedom, development, progress, and so forth. It is in this dynamic unfolding of the market-society interface that we must try to make sense of new social upheavals in the face of consumerism’s upgraded versions. Post read questions Do you think that globalisation results in only an aggressive consumer culture? Justify your answer. How has globalisation contributed to the democratisation of desire across different social classes? Is globalisation ultimately more about consumerism than cultural exchange? Why or why not? As markets increasingly turn citizens into consumers, what new social upheavals are emerging? Can transnational movements counterbalance the homogenising tendencies of globalisation? (Irfanullah Farooqi is an Assistant Professor at the Indian Institute of Management Kozhikode.) Share your thoughts and ideas on UPSC Special articles with ashiya.parveen@indianexpress.com. Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week. Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – IndianExpress UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X.
