Consumer society: When is enough, enough?

Joel Holland

The United States is a Mecca of commercialism, materialism, consumerism and

many other “isms” that revolve around the power of the all mighty dollar. To some, such

raw capitalism is what America stands for. For others, it is a growing concern rife with

repercussions rippling through the ranks of age, gender and social status. The

fundamental question becomes, when is enough, enough? While it is impossible to give a

quantifiable answer to this subjective question, one can evaluate many variables that

influence the answer. In this paper, we will explore the possibility of an overindulgent

consumer society in an objective manner, looking at the benefits, pitfalls, legal

implications, and ultimately, who is responsible for taking action to correct the problem,

if indeed there is one. To begin, let’s look at my personal story of an evolution through

consumer society, complete with examples of desire, satisfaction and overindulgence.

Growing up in Bryce Resort (Southern Virginia), I lived among two distinct

groups of people: the local lower-middle class, and the well-off vacationing families. It

was a strange dynamic for me, because my family didn’t fit neatly into either group. My

father is a lawyer and my mother is a contractor, and they moved our family to Bryce

when I was 6 in order to pursue an entrepreneurial lifestyle building investment

properties at the resort. We lived at Bryce for 7 years, during which time we built and

sold 7 houses. During that time, however, real estate at the resort did not appreciate in

value the way that my parents had hoped for, and the properties were each barely

profitable. Because of this, money was always extremely tight and my sister and I were

held to a $2 a week allowance. This was particularly difficult for me because I chose to

hang around the well-off kids that I envied, and I constantly desired the toys and brands

1
that they owned. I can vividly remember examples of the disturbing level to which my

desire took me: When kids started buying Roller Blades and my parents wouldn’t buy

them for me, I prayed each night for a month that God would make them appear in my

closet. I would wake up each morning and check the closet, increasingly upset that He

wasn’t listening to me. When Gameboys came out, I begged my sister to give me a tooth

she had recently lost so that I could put it under my pillow along with a Gameboy holder

I built out of tinfoil, and a note to the tooth fairy with delivery instructions. The year ski

clothing brand Spyder became very popular, I drew my own spider logo and taped it onto

my ski jacket. Even worse were instances where I would save up my earnings from

allowance and odd jobs, only to spend the money on a brand or toy that was unpopular

within a few months. As Murray Milner said in “Freaks, Geeks, and Cool Kids,” “The

paradox is that in order to be successful in the ‘conformity game’ students must

constantly change…” (Milner 6). Unfortunately these “changes” left me in the dust with

no budget left to spend on the new fads. The unhealthy level of unfulfilled desire as a

child had a deep psychological impact on me that has followed me throughout life: I am

driven with a fiery passion to accumulate wealth.

My obsession with accumulating money as a way to feel fulfillment has led me to

start and sell companies, landed me on BusinessWeek’s list of the “Top 25 Entrepreneurs

Under 25,” and given me the distinction of the US Small Business Administration’s 2007

“Small Businessperson of the Year,” among other achievements. While I am proud of

these accomplishments, however, there is a dark side: My obsession with money causes

me great stress, strain on health (many sleepless nights), hurts relationships and

occasionally drives me through bouts of anxiety and depression, and even self

2
destruction. This is because no matter how hard I work towards earning and saving, the

money seems to flow out much easier than it flows in. This, in turn, causes me to want to

work harder; yet, as my income increases, so too does my spending. As this vicious

cycle continues I get irritated, then angry, then complacent and numb. The process then

starts all over again.

To cope with the short term anxiety, I fantasize about having enough money to be

completely free from worrying about spending. I day dream about going to the mall and

purchasing Ralph Lauren clothing without feeling sick to my stomach, or taking my

girlfriend out for dinner without having to glance twice at menu prices. In these day

dreams I focus on my broader consumption fantasy which includes such immense wealth

that I can spend extravagantly on a Lamborghini to drive from my Greenwich mansion to

my Gulfstream V, which I will fly to my cabin in aspen in Aspen, yacht in Malibu or

private island in the Caribbean. Envisioning future prosperity allows me to remove some

of the guilt from spending in the present day because I feel silly grappling over a couple

hundred dollars now when I’ll have millions in the future. This method of rationalization

is the only thing that calms me down and takes my mind off of the pain I feel from

parting with money.

While I do indeed lust after expensive toys, my desire for wealth accumulation

does not fit into Holt’s “cultural capital” categorization. For me, money is a means

towards complete freedom, not a mechanism for identifying my social class position. To

me, complete freedom means being able to do anything I want to at any time. At this

moment, I would prefer to be in Aspen skiing rather than sitting in the library writing a

paper. If I had one billion dollars, I could afford to pick up and leave right now with no

3
repercussions. As it stands, I must abandon my desire and finish this paper in order to get

a good grade and graduate from college with a good GPA that will land me a good job

that will give me a good income so that I can provide food and shelter for myself and my

family. For me, the only way to avoid this rat race is through financial freedom.

Living contently in the present through visions of the future has been an up and

down experience for me thus far, causing problems in my life along the way, and

potentially serious implications if future meets reality and the pictures don’t match up. I

have started feeling some of the effects of this already. In middle school I believed that I

would be a millionaire by the time I graduated high school. In high school I envisioned

the millions that I’d posses by the end of college. Now college is coming to an end and

I’m deferring my lofty goals and ambitions yet again. At each step of the way it is

getting more and more difficult to convince myself that I’m accomplishing what I need to

in order to achieve my expectations (not dreams). Interestingly, many of my behavior

patterns fit neatly into Tim Kasser’s study of “The High Price of Materialism.” Kasser

would classify me as “an adolescent who put a priority on being rich” (Kasser 16).

According to his statistical model, I am 37% more likely (odds ratio of 1.37) to exhibit

patterns of hostile, defiant and disobedient behavior towards adults than kids who don’t

put a priority on being rich (Kasser 16). In reality, I was suspended in 7th grade, 11th

grade and12th grade for disobeying authority. Kasser’s formula also predicts I am 35%

more likely to engage in alcohol abuse than those who don’t prioritize being rich (Kasser

16). As my consumption log shows, I have a drinking problem when dealing with the

stress of not having enough money. Finally, Kasser’s formula predicts that I am 33%

more likely to have patterns of unstable relationships, mood swings, feelings of emptiness

4
and self-destructive behavior than those who don’t put a priority on being rich (Kasser

16). This prediction is in line with my constant struggle with extreme mood swings,

difficulty maintaining close relationships and self destructive behavior that led me to

being arrested three times as a senior in high school for stupid, unnecessary activities

(mainly related to alcohol).

My story has direct parallels to the millionaires from Silicon Valley that Gary

Rivlin wrote about. Like the founder of Match.com with a net worth of ten million

dollars that still works 80-hour weeks, no matter how much money I make, I doubt I will

ever be satisfied (Rivlin 1). My desire to continue accumulating wealth, and inability to

be satisfied with what I’ve accumulated at any given point, arises from seeing others

around me with more. Rivlin summarizes this dilemma by saying “…many such

accomplished and ambitions members of the digital elite still do not think of themselves

as particularly fortunate, in part because they are surrounded by people with more

wealth…” (Rivlin 1). Because of the constant flow of sensationalized stories of wealth

flowing over the internet, television and print, I am surrounded with constant reminders

of what I am lacking. But how do I know when my consumer desire, or that of the nation

as a whole, is approaching unhealthy levels and needs to be addressed?

While the point of overindulgence or desire is tough to pinpoint quantifiably,

Twitchell lays down one possible formula: “It is well to remember that such behavior

[gathering stuff] only becomes a sickness, an addition, an affliction, when your debts

exceed your credits” (Twitchell 252). The current negative savings rate and heavy

consumer debt levels in America would no doubt be categorized by Twitchell as a

dangerous situation. Whether or not consumers are truly overindulgent is difficult to

5
define in a concrete manner; however, it is possible to look beneath the issue to figure out

what is fueling consumer desire, and the finger seems to point directly towards

advertising.

Juliet Schor argues in “Born to Buy” that kids are extremely vulnerable to

consumer desire created through advertising. In 1978, the Federal Trade Commission

issued a report concluding that children under the age of seven “’do not possess the

cognitive ability to evaluate adequately child-oriented television advertising’” (Schor

177). This finding seems to fly in the face of Michael Schudson’s opinion in “Delectable

Materialism” that “…people ignore the vast amount of advertising they see and distrust

much of the little advertising they do take in” (Schudson 31). While it may be true that

adults can filter what flashes before their eyes, children with relatively undeveloped

brains may not be able to. Even though I wasn’t directly exposed to very much television

advertising as a child, I was highly impressionable and indirectly impacted by my peers

who were heavily influenced by advertising. Furthermore, as a child with little

disposable income, I was a violation of one of the major lines of defense that Schor

connects with the advertising industry: that advertising empowers kids. This didn’t hold

true for me because my parents never gave me money (it didn’t exist), so when I wanted

something I saw in an advertisement there was no empowerment, but rather an unhealthy

“…gap between desire and means…” (Schor 179). If advertises are indeed at fault for

aggressively targeting young consumers (or guilty for any other forms of misleading

consumers, objectifying women or otherwise crippling society) what could be done about

it, and who would be responsible for leading the charge for change?

6
 First, it is important to look at the legal issues involved in limiting a company’s

ability to advertise. Do corporations hold the same legal rights to free speech as

individuals? According to Supreme Court case Valentine v. Chrestensen in 1942, the

answer is no (Valentine). In this case, the Court coined the term “Commercial Speech”

in reference to any language that is expressed only for the economic interest of the

speaker (company). They held that this type of speech is not the same as opinion speech,

and therefore does not have the same protections under free speech. “We are … clear that

the Constitution imposes … no restraint on government as respects purely commercial

advertising” (Valentine). More recently, in Supreme Court case Liquormart, Inc. v.

Rhode Island in 1996, the Court found that the government may not issue a blanket ban

on advertising that is truthful and non-misleading; however, it held that:

“The state may regulate some types of commercial advertising more freely than

other forms of protected speech. Specifically, the state may require commercial

messages to appear in such a form, or include such additional information,

warnings, and disclaimers, as are necessary to prevent its being deceptive and it

may restrict some forms of aggressive sales practices that have the potential to

exert ‘undue influence’ over consumers” (Liquormart).

These findings opened the door for government regulation of advertising.

However, that alone is not enough to effect change. In a democracy, the government is in

place to be the voice of the people. Therefore, it becomes the job of John Q. Public to

influence the political sheep to act by banding together and creating a critical mass of

opinion.

7
 Most would agree that at a certain point enough is enough when it comes to

excessive, aggressive or manipulative advertising. But who determines this point, and

whose responsibility is it to take a stance? Schor discusses one way in which advertising

can be limited: Government intervention through the influence of public interest groups.

She points out that in 1974 the Federal Communications Commission enacted a series of

regulations aimed at helping children differentiate between programming and advertising

(no host selling, limited advertising time, separators between ads and programming)

(Schor 177). The FCC was empowered to make these regulations because of pressure

from public interest groups such as Action for Children’s Television, Commercial Alert,

Consumes Union, among many others. These public interest groups are formed when a

large enough group of constituents feels there is a problem in society that needs to be

addressed through proactive action. After identifying an issue and corralling support for

the cause, the group can fund a study, start a petition for government intervention, or

influence public sentiment towards a company or product.

Whether or not the United States has overindulged in consumerism is a matter of

opinion. In a democracy where majority rules, it is up to consumer advocacy and public

interest groups to convince either the masses or the government that there is a problem.

The theory of efficient markets implies that “bad” marketing and advertising practices

will be weeded out of the system automatically as consumer sentiment shifts against

products deemed immoral or ill-gotten. If, on the other hand, corporations are profiting

on a few individuals at the expense of many (Tobacco companies as an example), public

interest groups can also influence political representatives to enact protective legislation.

The question of whether advertising/marketing practices are “right” or “wrong” is highly

8
subjective and relies on the public to determine the “tipping point” at which change is

necessary.

As for me, images of grandeur and goals of complete financial independence have

existed as long as I can remember, and I will continue working feverishly to make them

reality. Perhaps I will conquer my aspirations, in which case I may become a lobbyist in

support of the advertising industry. On the other hand, I know a major weakness of mine

is the inability to find satisfaction with anything. For me, the grass is always greener on

the other side of the fence. If left unaddressed, this mentality, matched with my

aggressive personality, could be disastrous when and if I finally realize that my

consumption fantasy is not realistic. Perhaps at this point I will create or join a public

interest group to combat aggressive advertising towards children to protect future

generations from living a story similar to mine. Either way, the capitalistic machine that

is America will continue to churn and burn as it is, with modifications made possible only

by intervention from active citizens who develop a critical mass in support of change.

9
 Works Cited

Kasser, Tim. The High Price of Materialism. London: The MIT P, 2002.

"LIQUORMART, INC. AND PEOPLES SUPER LIQUOR STORES, INC.,

PETITIONERS V. RHODE ISLAND AND RHODE ISLAND LIQUOR

STORES ASSOCIATION." LEXIS Case Law (1996). LexisNexus Academic.

Babson College, Babson Park. 12 Nov. 2007

<http://http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.babson.edu/us/lnacademic/results/doc

view/docview.do?

risb=21_T2500169354&format=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resul

tsUrlKey=29_T2500169359&cisb=22_T2500169358&treeMax=true&treeWidth=

0&csi=6443&docNo=1>.

Milner, Murray. Freaks, Geeks, and Cool Kids. New York: Routledge, 2006.

Rivlin, Gary. "In Silicon Valley, Millionaires Who Don'T Feel Rich." The New York

Times 5 Aug. 2007. 15 Oct. 2007

<http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/technology/05rich.html>.

Schor, Juliet B. Born to Buy. New York: Scribner, 2005.

Schudson, Michael. "Delectable Materialism." The American Prospect Apr. 1991.

Twitchell, James B. Lead Us Into Temptation. New York: Columbia, 1999.

"VALENTINE, POLICE COMMISSIONER OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, V.

CHRESTENSEN." LEXIS Case Law (1942). LexisNexus Academic. Babson

College, Babson Park. 12 Nov. 2007

<http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.babson.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/d

ocview.do?

10
risb=21_T2500147677&format=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resul

tsUrlKey=29_T2500147684&cisb=22_T2500147683&treeMax=true&treeWidth=

0&csi=6443&docNo=1>.

11