Biodegradable Diapers are Not Enough In Days Like These: A Critique of Commodity Environmentalism

Eric Fink

A few months ago, there raged a monumental debate over when the old decade would "officially" give way to the new. Was it, as popularly assumed, New Year's day 1990? Or must we, as the pedants insist, wait until 1991?

Some chronologists prefer a more politically oriented calendar. One of the earliest choices for marking the demise of the 80's was the October 1987 stock market collapse. November 1988, when George Bush was elected President, or January 1989, when Ronald Reagan stepped down from the presidency and gave way to his kinder, gentler successor, are other obvious candidates.

At this late date, it appears that another contender is being proclaimed the people's choice as benchmark of the dawning of the new age. To judge from all the hoopla, Earth Day 1990, the spectacle of planetary celebration being played out this week across college campuses, city streets and parks, and, of course, TV screens, marks the suddenly long-awaited transition from the greed decade of the 80's to the green decade of the 90's.

Yet the greening of America (and the capitalist world generally) does not necessarily signal a sea change in political values and priorities. As environmentalism becomes the latest political "key word," it is increasingly adopted across the political spectrum and adapted to an astonishing range of policies and ideologies. In the last election, George Bush announced his intention to be the "environmental President." In Britain, after the Green Party captured an astonishing 12% of the vote for the European Parliament, Margaret Thatcher declared herself to be a "green" and her Tories the true party of the environment.

Not all such appeals to environmentalist sentiment can be dismissed as mere cynicism or opportunism (although some safely can be, such as the ads by Britain's CEGB touting the supposed environmental benefits of nuclear power because it does not contribute to the greenhouse effect). If the chameleons of the political right are taking on a new, greenish hue, it is at least in part because they see environmentalism, at least when cast in the appropriate terms, as providing material as well as ideological support for their overall political project. Likewise, corporate capitalism's new found concern for the earth stems from a recognition that environmentalism can be good for business

Nowhere is the co-opting of environmentalism more visible than in the rise of the green consumer culture. This is far from a simple development. In part, it has been stimulated by the rise of "green" companies which have arisen to serve the needs of environmentally concerned consumers. But of late, the fires of e-consumerism have been stoked by mainstream corporations, for whom green remains above all the color of money. Because of historical and economic changes, catering to the green market now makes good financial sense to capitalist firms

A primary feature of the contemporary capitalist economy is "flexibility." The "post-Fordist" firm is flexible in its organizational structure, in its technological infrastructure, and most important, in the goods or services it offers. The mass-production/mass-consumption model of the era of organized capitalism is losing ground. Firms increasingly seek profits by offering a range of commodities tailored to suit the preferences of specific segments. Within such a flexible accumulation regime, any emerging taste culture, no matter how far from the mainstream, becomes yet another target market

It is this change in the nature of capitalist accumulation which provides the material conditions for the condition which Jameson and others discuss under the rubric of "postmodernism." (see Fredric Jameson, "Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Capitalism," New Left Review no. 146) Jameson describes a situation wherein commodification and social control have extended into every aspect of social life, blurring any distinction between elite and popular culture as well as between celebratory and critical responses to social conditions. That is, late capitalism, by virtue of its flexible accumulation regime, has been able to appropriate even the most radical ideas and artifacts, ridding them of their threatening qualities and turning them into marketable commodities. Hammer and Sickle tee- shirts, $300 Soviet-made watches, and hit records talking about a revolution, are just a few manifestations of post-Fordist capitalism's ability to withstand radicalism by selling it.

It is only within this context that we can properly evaluate green consumerism as a strategy for achieving ecologist goals. The eco-capitalist claim is that we can shop for a better world, using our power as consumers within the market to cast a vote in favor of the environment. Thus, we are urged to use recycled toilet paper, biodegradable laundry detergent, and solar-powered battery rechargers, in order to effect global environmental change. For your shopping convenience, all of these are available for purchase from new age entrepreneurs who willingly flood the mails with their catalogues (printed, of course, on recycled paper). While you're at it, you can also buy an Earth Daytm tee-shirt or wildlife calendar, to show your support for the environment. You can even invest your hard earned savings in an environmentally responsible mutual fund, putting your money to work for global change while earning a nice income (to fund more green shopping sprees?). And all within the comfort and privacy of your own (solar powered, I hope) home

At first glance, this seems far from insidious. After all, we do live in a capitalist society, and most of us are forced to shop for our daily needs and comforts. Surely it's better to put our money where our hearts and minds are, and patronize companies which are helping the environment (or at least hurting less than their competitors).

There is no doubt that our individual choices and actions do make a difference (at least in the aggregate). Any responsible eco-activist ought to be conscious when making spending decisions. The problem with green consumerism is that it ultimately buys into a neo-liberal capitalist ideology within which fundamental social change is not possible. It consequently leads to a reduction in the scope of ecological activism. It does this in two ways.

First, this approach valorizes consumer choice in the market for commodified goods and services as the preferred way to achieve socially desired ends. This leads to the denigration, or even denial, of collective political action. Naomi Braun Rosenthal's criticism (quoted in L.A. Kauffman, "The Anti-Politics of Identity," Socialist Review 90/1) of "consciousness-raising" in which "the message is that women [as individuals] must change and that political action is either unnecessary or futile," is equally powerful when applied to green consumerism. Ecologically responsible shopping all to easily degenerates from something which is desirable in the meantime while one engages in collective political action to transform society in some fundamental way, into an all consuming substitute for politics.

As a political strategy, eco-shopping is limited in at least two important respects. First, market mechanisms are insufficient to deal with the externalities imposed by those consumers who continue to choose environmentally destructive products. Market choice may be a useful component of a more encompassing eco-strategy. But collective political action is still needed, both to make the green market work by facilitating the sort of fundamental changes in social values needed to make every consumer a green consumer, and to press for basic economic and political change, including state policies which promote environmental protection. The reduction in the level of lead in the air we breath, for example, did not result from individual consumers choosing unleaded gasoline at their corner service station. It happened because auto makers were required by law to manufacture cars which used only unleaded gas.

Moreover, given the economic inequality inherent in capitalist society, the market approach has an unfortunate classist aspect. In the market for consumer goods and services, "green" is typically associated with expensive. As a result, "shopping for a better world" remains a privilege of those eco- activists with sufficient disposable income to allow them to choose irrespective of price. Buying green thus becomes little more than the latest status symbol, a perverse form of conspicuous consumption no more "politically correct" than the 80's penchant for Rolex watches and BMWs. An environmentalist movement which ignores the working class and the poor cannot hope to achieve more than limited, transitory change

Along with leading to a denial of politics, green consumerism also distorts the nature of the problem to which it is supposed to be a solution. The global environmental crisis ceases to be understood as a complex, multi- faceted, and encompassing problem and becomes instead a set of more or less discrete problems which can be addressed in relative isolation from one another: air and water pollution, toxic waste, deforestation, the greenhouse effect, and so on. Environmentalism is consequently reduced to a shopping basket filled with discrete, packaged commodities promising to remove unsightly landfills, to whiten and brighten oil-stained beaches, or to build strong ozone layers 12 ways. But ecological disaster is more complex a problem than ring around the collar, and it demands a more complex, holistic approach

Ecological consumerism amounts to little more than Thatcherism with a green face. A truly environmentalist approach must go beyond consumerism. If we are to save the planet, we need to engage in a thoroughgoing, radical project of collective political action aimed at a fundamental transformation of our society. I maintain that any such project must be informed by a democratic socialist critique of capitalism and neo- liberal market ideology. Not until we have eliminated commodity relations, among people as well as between us and the environment, will we see a better world in birth

Source: EcoSocialist Review 4(2), Summer 1990.

EcoSocialist Review is the journal of the Environmental Commission of the Democratic Socialists of America. Articles may be reprinted if the source is acknowledged with address and subscription price: quarterly, $10 a year, checks to "Chicago DSA" 1608 N. Milwaukee, 4th fl., Chicago IL 60637 USA.

Back...