Ok, so, this is a good example of where I take issue with people’s ideas regarding consumerism, “If you look at metrics such as the number of close friends that the average American has, they seem to be going down.” This argument is quite concreting since most people tend to read articles that circulate social media or the news, and take it at face value without deeper research.
I would challenge the notion that people value consumption more than building meaningful relationships. The problem with this claim is that much of the research often cited for this idea tend to be biased. They lack enough nuance to what’s really going on. For example, the number of young people valuing buying things based on the experience those things can provide, such as travelling the world, or going to concerts. We also have to add the value of work-life balance and the drive for remote work over office work, are largely rooted people’s desire to be with friends and family more. While consumerism as a term deals with consumption largely, the value it holds is the responsibility of the individual. It’s not meant to deliver depth, but we can make it deep with self-awareness, and this is where people value going to concerts, or eating out with friends, etc…It’s the experience of relaxing or connecting in a busy world. As to people not making meaningful friendships, I would argue that’s more so a community issue than a consumerism issue.
Here’s what I’ll say, your definition of consumerism is good, that’s why you don’t see the value in what’s being said. So much of the conversation around consumerism has been to demonise it while failing to acknowledge that for some centuries now man have been able to experience consumerism in ways that have been had their good and their bad. but if you come at the term from a largely bad context, then it makes sense that you will struggle to learn from the post. The idea of the post is challenge people to see things outside of common talking pints and group think, which is what the conversation around consumerism is. Much of it is group think.
I say this to the point that people are t tacking into account that much consumerism isn’t happening in large scale that people make it out to be. Most consumers spend their money on bills or basic needs, enforce actually buying anything from a context of material happiness, yet, some who people have developed an idea that the average person is just spending just to be spending. Yes, there are drawbacks to consumerism, but there as many good things about it. For example, it helps with communal connect, benefits the economy, which is a common argument, it’s good for self-expression, and also valuable for creating happiness when done right. I don’t support the notion that people should buy based on what’s needed, since it’s in human nature to want to buy according to what will allow people to have fun or connect to others. Now, are there times when this can get out of control in people, yes, but I don’t agree with generalising this as if our overall expert is crippled by it. We just need to encourage people to be self-aware regarding their spending. Make sure people are knowledgeable about what they are buying, as to minimise bad habits. Other than that, consumerism isn't generally a bad thing, but I would say the narrow scope of the conversation regarding consumerism unfortunately is a problem. It’s not challenging people to take accountability as much as I would think it would.
“A creative argument (seen from the traditional right and the far left) that consumerist culture, defined above, makes it harder to produce great art/culture. The idea is that an excessive focus on mass-consumption, and profits from this, drives artists to make content for the lowest common denominator, and thus they no longer make 'transcendent' or 'great' art. This is where the term 'selling out' comes from, which is inextricable tied to consumerism. Naturally it also relates to how one assesses 'great' art (is there such a thing? There is at least new and innovative art which consumerism might hamper).”
This is something, as musician, I’ve been taking issue with, the claim of the “lowest common denominator“, as if it’s a bad thing. The reason being is that most creatives who complain about lack of originality don’t actually understand what not how originality works. Often to the point where, I’ve seen innovative art that was genuinely bad, but was accepted simply because it was anti-consumerist”. The issue is take is that art should appeal to the lowest common denominator for key reason, “Shared cultural connection”. How people connect to each other is often based on sharing tastes. This does not stop artists from being original as artists claim, while there will be obstacles at times, most artists are allowed to be original as long as they include that lowest comm denominator, in most cases, where they fail is that they lack respect for that principle. Then blame consumerism or capitalism, while not taking responsibility for the fact that the mainstream market likes things a certain way for good reasons. If art is to serve the world around it, art needs to respect the perspectives and tastes of the people to a good extent, while being able to challenge at times. Artists are not good understanding this, I too failed to get it years ago, until I began learning how bayside’s works as well as human nature. I want my music to unite people as much as I can get people to listen to it, so, I need to marry who I am to that “lowest common denominator”, this is how many greats have been successful when you dissect their work to see why so many people loved them. Most people bond over the “lowest common denominator” of that music. Motown was a machine in its own right, but they did good mechanising music, while bringing greatness to the process.