Content uploaded by Sue L.T. Mcgregor
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sue L.T. Mcgregor on Nov 19, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
In Factis Pax
Volume 15 Number 1 (2021): 32-53
http://www.infactispax.org/journal
32
Volume 15 Number 1 (2021): 32-53 ISSN 2578-6857
http://www.infactispax.org/journal
Democratic Consumption
Sue L. T. McGregor
Abstract
This think piece explores the idea of democratic consumption. After
explaining its etymological roots, 12 principles of democracy are described. A
narrative of the review of literature (organized by century 19th, 20th and 21st) is
followed with an analysis of common threads and emergent patterns. Five ideas
were associated with democratic consumption with nominal agreement on how
and in what direction: common good, economic freedom and capitalism, welfare
state, ethical consumption, and diverse consumer interest. Although the focus of
democratic consumption has changed over time, it is consistently linked with
several principles (e.g., economic freedom, equality, freedom and rights, and the
rule of law) and it eschews others (e.g., an independent judiciary). Consumer,
philosophy, political, social welfare, economic, and peace theorists are
encouraged to empirically explore what constitutes democratic consumption
defined tentatively as behaviour having to do with consumption reflective of and
influenced by democratic principles for a myriad of reasons.
Keywords: democratic consumption, democratic principles, consumer behaviour,
common good, economic freedom.
In Factis Pax
Volume 15 Number 1 (2021): 32-53
http://www.infactispax.org/journal
33
Introduction
This think piece explores the idea of democratic consumption. Intending
to “reopen what has been a long conversation about the nature of democracy in an
age of consumer culture,” Kroen (2004) referred to “the compatibility of
consumption and democracy (p. 711). Of interest herein is how consumption is
related to, informed by or reflective of democratic principles.
In a think piece, the author shares their conceptually advanced but still
evolving thoughts on a topic to stimulate provocative thinking and scholarly
discourse. Arguments are developed and tested in anticipation of other scholars
judging them meritorious (McGregor, 2018; McLean, 2011). Think pieces
“reflect an amalgamation of literature and the author’s intellectual insights”
(McGregor, 2018, p. 475). In that spirit, after explaining the etymological roots of
democratic consumption, key principles of democracy are described as a
preamble to reviewing literature pursuant to democratic consumption. The paper
concludes with an analysis of common ideas that were threaded through and
patterns emergent in this literature.
Etymological Roots
The suffix -cracy is a word-forming element used to create nouns.
Democracy, one example, is Greek demos, ‘the people’ and kratia, ‘power or
rule’ (Harper, 2021). A democracy is thus a form of rule or government where
people have a say or voice in the exercise of political power, a voice they
manifest by electing others to represent their interests (i.e., elected representatives
constitute a representative democracy) (MacQuoid-Mason, 1994). Western
democracy (also called liberal democracy) is a political system prevalent in the
United States (presidential system), Canada (parliamentary system) and the
United Kingdom (constitutional monarchy). It operates on the principles of
liberalism including liberty, consent of the governed, and equality before the law.
It manifests in free trade, capitalism, individualism, the rule of law, and the
protection of rights and freedoms (Harpin, 1999).
The suffix er is Old English ere, ‘man [sic] who has to do with’ (Harper,
2021). So, a consumer is a person who has to do with consuming. Consume can
have many meanings: (a) use up completely, (b) spend wastefully or squander, (c)
use in great quantity, (d) avidly enjoy (devour), (e) fully engage (be engrossed)
and (f) utilize as a customer (i.e., consume goods and services) (“Consume,”
n.d.). Consumer behaviour pertains to the “processes [people] use to select,
secure, use, and dispose of products, services, experiences, or ideas to satisfy
needs [and wants] and the impacts that these processes have on the consumer and
In Factis Pax
Volume 15 Number 1 (2021): 32-53
http://www.infactispax.org/journal
34
society" (Hawkins, Motherbaugh, & Best, 2007, p. 6). The word consumption is
formed by adding the word-forming element -tion to the noun consume (Harper,
2021). Democratic consumption is thus behaviour having to do with consumption
reflective of and influenced by democratic principles for a myriad of reasons.
Principles of Democracy
Iacocca (1984) posited that people who “buy a house and a car and a
refrigerator [are] the cement in our whole democracy” (p. 319). But consumers
have also been called the irrational masses because they are under the influence of
persuasive and pervasive advertising and marketing (Aptheker, 1955). Sassatelli
(207) characterized advertising and marketing as an “all-powerful ‘brainwasher’
[that] shapes the image of consumption and of consumers” (p. 126).
No longer trusted to make rational choices under this influence, it has
been argued that consumers serve as evidence that mass consumerism is
undermining the guiding principles of democracy (Aptheker, 1955). Lohmann
(1988) suggested that people’s brains have political parts and consumer parts. He
asserted that it is time to use the political parts to think new thoughts that focus on
consumption and democracy. This new thinking requires an awareness of the
principles of democracy (Lohmann, 1988). Principles guide personal behaviour.
Democratic principles can thus guide consumer behaviour, which inturn impacts
democratic society. In an oft-cited document, MacQuoid-Mason (1994) spelled
out 12 principles of democracy (see Table 1).
Table 1
Principles of Democracy (gleaned from MacQuoid-Mason, 1994)
• citizen participation in government
• free and fair elections
• accept election results – win or lose
• multiparty systems and perspectives
• transparency and accountability
• independent judiciary (separation)
• control of government’s abuse of power
• rule of law
• protected rights and freedoms (Bill of Rights, charters, constitutions)
• political tolerance of diversity
• equality and human rights
• economic freedom
To begin, in descending order per Table 1, because democracy is about
In Factis Pax
Volume 15 Number 1 (2021): 32-53
http://www.infactispax.org/journal
35
elected representation, three key principles are citizen participation in
government, free and fair elections (and the right to run for office), and
accepting election results – win or lose – with a smooth transition of power.
Next, democracies depend on multiparty systems that allow for formal
opposition to the majority party. Different viewpoints exist on various issues,
and voters have a choice of whom to vote for to best represent their interests.
And, those elected are expected to be accountable to the public and responsible
for their own actions. This means that elected officials must arrange for public
meetings and consultations with constituents to ensure transparency so people
can ‘see through’ their actions – both intent and consequences (MacQuoid-
Mason, 1994).
To continue, a democracy has an independent judiciary that is separate
from other parts of government. The judicial system (i.e., law courts, judges,
and those who interpret the law and administer justice) can act without undue
influence from or control by elected or other parties. Hand in hand with
judiciary separation are the principles of zero tolerance for corruption, and the
solid control of any abuse of power (e.g., misappropriated public funds or illegal
political influence). An additional principle is the rule of law, which holds both
that no one is above the law (i.e., everyone has to obey it) and everyone is
entitled to equal protection of the law, which is enforced equally, fairly, and
consistently in a democracy (MacQuoid-Mason, 1994).
In principle, citizens can also expect their rights and freedoms to be
recognized and protected usually in charters, bills of rights, and constitutions.
These instruments protect citizens from harmful actions of their elected
government (but not from corporations’ actions). Also, in a democracy, society
is expected to be politically tolerant of diversity (e.g., culture, religion,
ethnicity, age, sex, gender, sexual orientation, locale). In principle, all voices are
valued, and people must be allowed freedom of assembly, movement, and
speech (i.e., expression of thoughts and opinions) (MacQuoid-Mason, 1994).
In close association is the principle of equality and human rights. For
clarification, democracy values equality and strives for everyone to have equal
opportunities (i.e., resources to meet challenges) (MacQuoid-Mason, 1994).
Respectfully, equality concerns giving everyone the exact same resources, while
equity involves distributing resources based on people’s needs so they can meet
their challenges (Bronfenbrenner, 1973). To illustrate, three people of varying
heights are behind a fence trying to see a ball game. From an equality stance,
they would each get the same box to stand on. From an equity stance, the
heights of the boxes would vary, so everyone can see over the fence. Premised
on both concepts, democracy minimizes prejudice (erroneously prejudging
someone) and discrimination (acting on the prejudgement). From a structural
In Factis Pax
Volume 15 Number 1 (2021): 32-53
http://www.infactispax.org/journal
36
(systemic) violence perspective, the fence would be removed entirely thereby
eliminating the systemic barrier and source of inequity (Business Disability
International, 2016).
Human rights value human life and dignity (i.e., the right to be valued
and deemed worthy of respect). These rights include but are not limited to (a)
the freedom to move within, beyond and back to one’s own country; (b)
freedom of assembly (people gathered together) and self-expression while
assembled; and (c) freedom of thought and conscience as long as exercising
these freedoms respects the law (MacQuoid-Mason, 1994). In particular,
freedom of thought and conscience means people are aware that they are
holding particular beliefs and are free to actually have, hold and act on them
without persecution or prosecution. Indeed, democracy depends on people being
able to harbor whatever opinions and beliefs their conscience dictates. They can
act on these thoughts if they do not injure themselves or others (McKay-Panos,
2012). People draw on their conscience (i.e., moral sense of right and wrong)
when they assemble and express their opinions (MacQuoid-Mason, 1994).
A final democratic principle is economic freedom, wherein the elected
government encourages private ownership of property and businesses, and
citizens have a choice of work with the option to join labour unions. In most
democracies, free markets prevail with nominal government control over the
economy – just enough to ensure uninterrupted, competitive trade (MacQuoid-
Mason, 1994). Consumption is implicit in economic freedom, because free
market capitalism depends on consumerism (the ideology) and consumption (the
behaviour) with private ownership extending to people being able to own and
consume what they purchase.
Economic freedom allegedly expands the range of choices for consumers
(Vasquez, 2005). “Economic freedom, the right to use the fruits of our labor
every day without political influence, is essential for democracy to thrive”
(Dunkelberg, 2018, para. 1). That said, “capitalism [is] based on the freedom to:
[sic] own property, earn a living, operate a business, invest earnings, trade
internationally, and participate in a market economy” (Burkhart, 2000, p. 237).
According to Jeremy Rifkin (American economic and social theorist), we
“cannot have true participatory democracy in a market economy. [There is]
absolutely no way of invigorating principles of democracy... so long as
[companies and consumers] have to survive in a market economy” (as cited in
Gabriel & Lang, 1995, p. 150). If participating in a capitalistic free market
economy as a consumer impinges on democratic principles, then consumption
can be characterized as undemocratic.
In summary, democracy is predicated on a set of widely accepted
principles concerning a form of government where all citizens technically have
In Factis Pax
Volume 15 Number 1 (2021): 32-53
http://www.infactispax.org/journal
37
a say in a nation’s life. These principles guide citizens’ thought processes,
behaviour, and attendant reflections on the same. Democracies provide
opportunities to become personally involved in the life of a nation (especially
the government). If the principles are adhered to, they ensure that power is
evenly distributed, people can contribute their opinions without being overly
judged (especially via voting), and they get to live in a country whose economy
is strong and has steady growth. Elected representatives can be voted in or out at
regular intervals helping citizens ensure their interests are being represented.
Democratic arrangements tend to lead to stronger levels of patriotism, because,
in principle, people have a say in molding a society that meets their
expectations. Adherence to democratic principles also creates conditions where
extremes are less frequent (people tend to come to the center), war is less likely
to manifest, and economic stability is more assured (Miller, 2019). This paper
concerns how these principles are linked with consumption.
Method for Collating Ideas about Democratic Consumption
Using Boolean searches via Google and Google Scholar in Winter 2021,
the author judiciously selected and collated a diverse collection of ideas about
democratic consumption and consumerism with the process unfolding until
saturation (Kline & Farrell, 2005). The conceptually rich selection of ideas
shared herein represents conceptualizations of democratic consumption
prevalent from the 1800s to the 2020s. The presentation of this corpus reflects a
cohesive and cogent argument that threads divergent ideas and aligned
trajectories together per the tenets of preparing a think piece (Cohen, 2014;
Lindsay, 2012; McGregor, 2018).
Results
Fourteen documents (i.e., refereed papers, books, book chapters, keynote
addresses) were found pertaining to democratic consumption and consumerism
(published between 1982 and 2020). Their presentation is organized
chronologically by century (19th, 20th and 21st) unless detours are justified.
Supportive or clarifying literature is interwoven into the results when warranted.
Nineteenth Century Democratic Consumption (1800s)
Speaking of consumption in nineteenth-century France (1800s),
Williams (1982) affirmed that, during this era, democratic consumption was
considered a manner of consuming that “encouraged a simplicity of lifestyle and
In Factis Pax
Volume 15 Number 1 (2021): 32-53
http://www.infactispax.org/journal
38
the dignity of the common man [sic]” (McCracken, 1988, p. 23). She suggested
that “merchandise is seen, or rather heard, as making a statement [thereby
enabling people to] communicate through things” (Williams, 1982, p. 203).
Democratic consumption was viewed as a means of using consumption to
instruct others about how to reform how they consume.
Building on this potential, the intent of democratic consumption is thus
to resocialize people so they can change their concept of self, society and
consuming itself (Williams, 1982).
McCracken (1988) described this mode of consumption as “accessible, modest,
and dignified” (p. 23). He too considered consumer goods and services as
expressive and symbolic referring to “the language of goods” (McCracken,
1998, p. 25). With this form of democratic consumption come egalitarianism
and equality (Williams, 1982).
Twentieth Century Democratic Consumption (1900-1999)
Although consumerism was born in Western Europe (Stearns, 2006;
Williams, 1982), latecomer North America left an indelible mark on the rest of
the world. Events in the United States (US) influenced Canada, other
Commonwealth nations, and many European countries (Horowitz, 2004).
Capitalism and economic freedom. The political call for people to
consume intentionally was part of the early evolution of American consumerism
(1920s and 1930s). The aim was to “connect purchasing their products with
protecting the American way of life by supporting the war effort” (Horowitz,
2004, p. 21). Any concurrent calls for consumption as democratic for the good
of community were stifled relative to calls for consumption as patriotic for the
good of the nation. Efforts to “make a convincing link between democracy, the
reform of capitalism, and lessened consumption” were undermined (Horowitz,
2004, p. 21). Democratic consumption was actively touted, but its uptake was
thwarted at the time.
Political initiatives in the 1930s (e.g., the New Deal in response to the
Depression era) entrenched a system supportive of bourgeoning consumerism.
These initiatives helped people spend money. Examples of the New Deal
include (a) a new social welfare system (social security, minimum wages,
unemployment benefits); (b) a shored-up banking system (secure way to save
for homes, cars and education); and (c) a stabilized economy via fiscal and
monetary policies. These and other political initiatives all depended on
consumption, which “was seen as critical to the economy” (Horowitz, 2004, p.
23) and to Western democracy.
Major pushback to this policy direction came in the form of Lewis
In Factis Pax
Volume 15 Number 1 (2021): 32-53
http://www.infactispax.org/journal
39
Mumford (American historian, sociologist, humanist) who argued that a
democratic society depends on (a) cohesive families and communities and (b)
self-restrained consumption rather than liberalism and the pursuit of
materialistic self-gratification through capitalistic markets at the expense of
families and communities (Horowitz, 2004). This was, in effect, a “wartime cry
for democratic consumption [characterized as] chastened consumption
[dependent on] nonmaterialistic values responsive to human needs and human
purposes” (2004, p. 40). Mumford’s (and likeminded) attempt to ensure
democracy by pushing back against liberal capitalism and unchaste consumption
failed however with economic freedom prevailing (Horowitz, 2004).
MacQuoid-Mason (1994) recognized economic freedom as a key
principle of democracy. But this was not always so. Kroen (2004) recounted that
“this positive connection of the consumer as the quintessential citizen, and free
enterprise as the ideal medium for democracy, only came to prevail after the
Second World War” (p. 709). Before that, people fighting for consumer
cooperatives, labour unions, and a living wage “claimed that democracy
depended on a critique of capitalism” (p. 710) not a full-on embracing of
capitalism as a key principle of democracy. After the forties, however, “the
informed consumer was the linchpin of freedom and democracy” (Kroen, 2004,
p. 710) in the capitalistic market (see also Iacocca, 1984).
In more detail, after 1945, American discourse viewed “the consumer as
an active agent of democratization... and the handmaiden of social democracy”
(Kroen, 2004, p. 720). It is noteworthy that a handmaiden connotes someone of
lowly status who serves others in the role of slave or servant. Whether intended
or not, this view intimates that democracy cannot exist without people enslaved
in the consumer role. Kroen asserted that, at this historical moment, consumers
were “recognized as key actors in a democracy” (2004, p. 721). They became
the bedrock of democracy, a sentiment echoed in the democratic principle of
economic freedom (MacQuoid-Mason, 1994). This era actually formulated
“consumption as democracy” (Kroen, 2004, p. 731) with this ideology
migrating to the restructuring of postwar Europe via the American-led Marshall
Plan intended to bolster the devastated European economy and world trade
(Horowitz, 2004; Kroen, 2004). Consumerism as a building block of democracy
went global.
Little (1993) referred to democratic consumption in his discussion of the
approximately two-year journey (1947-1948) of the Freedom Train (an actual
train housing a curated exhibition and educational program) commemorating the
160th signing of the American constitution. “Embedded in some of the [civic
education] program's language and symbols ... was the idea that democratic
consumption was a crucial measure of the American system of government. ...
In Factis Pax
Volume 15 Number 1 (2021): 32-53
http://www.infactispax.org/journal
40
The consumption theme ... was present and persistent enough that the celebrated
democratic values and freedoms were often circumscribed to the amorphous
national issues of abundance, growth” (p. 39). The curators of the Freedom
Train exhibit “sought a unity that was rooted in free enterprise capitalism and
the perception of economic abundance for business and consumers. By
implication, the ability to purchase consumer goods was a tangible measure of
abundance and inexorably tied to democratic principles” (Little, 1993, p. 46).
Toward the end of the twentieth century, Brown (1993) discounted the
democratic principle of economic freedom in concert with capitalism when she
argued that “no economy is based on individual choice[,] and the systems of
institutions, social relationships, and power in modern capitalism foreclose
democratic control of the economy” (p. 57). She maintained that when the
education system solely trains workers to sustain the capitalistic system, which
in turn depends on their consumer behaviour, people miss the opportunity to
develop “capacities for social reason in communication necessary for shaping
and participating in a democratic community” (p. 56). In this scenario, Brown
(1993) claimed that the tradition of democracy had been assaulted by capitalism
thereby crippling people’s ability to promote the common good.
Welfare state. The literature review also revealed that the welfare state
and democratic consumption are connected. The former emerged in the United
States after the Great Depression via President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New
Deal. In a welfare state, the government creates a system that protects and
ensures the health and well-being of its citizens especially those in financial,
physical or social need (e.g., unemployment insurance, pension plans, social
welfare [food, shelter and otherwise], child benefits, veterans’ benefits,
workers’ compensation) (Barr, 2020; Kessler-Harris & Vaudagna, 2017). This
system of basic economic security and individual and social well-being (current
state) and wellness (process) entails redistributing excess public funds by (a)
giving money directly to individuals, (b) using money to create services for
everyone or (c) some combination (Engellau, 1984).
From a different perspective, Engellau (1984) discussed the democratic
consumption of surplus income in a welfare state. He explained that
administrators of welfare states normally actively resist the ethics of capitalism
whose basic tenet is that each person is responsible for their own state. The
government (state) is not responsible – instead, capitalists assume that everyone
is out for themselves (economic individualism). Adherents of this philosophy
argue that self-reliance will push individuals to work harder, which in turn
benefits society as a whole. Engellau (1984) proposed that affluence (i.e., an
abundance of surplus wealth) can eventually kill a democratic welfare state,
because the larger the welfare state grows, the more it eats into its surplus to
In Factis Pax
Volume 15 Number 1 (2021): 32-53
http://www.infactispax.org/journal
41
distribute benefits until there is no surplus left.
When this happens, the market has to take over thus leaving the welfare
state by the wayside. Wealth is instead created and distributed according to
neoliberal tenets in a capitalistic market (Engellau, 1984). For clarification,
neoliberalism privileges privatization, deregulation, decentralization, nominal
government intervention in markets, individualism (no concern for others), and
materialism and consumerism to fuel the capitalistic economic model – property
ownership, growth, development, and progress predicated on the elite’s
accumulation of money and wealth (McGregor, 2001).
Consumer rights and strategies. In the mid-1900s, democratic
consumption was linked with consumer rights. In the early fifties, the
Consumers Union (renowned American consumer activist group) “reaffirmed
[its] ‘faith in a democratic society in which the production of goods and services
is guided by the free choice of consumers’” (as cited in Hilton, 2009, p. 159).
This sentiment especially represents a direct link between the democratic
principle of economic freedom and democratic consumption.
In the sixties, President John F. Kennedy ushered in consumer rights and
argued that if they are not respected, “‘the national interest suffers’” (as cited in
Hilton, 2009, p. 185). These rights were intended to be “the means to achieve
the consumer democracy” (Hilton, 2009, p. 185). The original four consumer-
interest pillars (information, choice, safety, voice) became the foundation for
Consumer International’s (CI) eight consumer rights (including redress,
consumer education, healthy environment, basic needs). CI (2021) is a world
federation of more than 200 national consumer organizations spanning 100
countries. These rights were eventually embraced by the United Nations (Hilton,
2009, McGregor, 2017). In effect, the concept of democratic consumption
(although not necessarily called that) had gone viral.
Near the end of the century, Lohmann (1998) argued that “bringing
consumption under more democratic control ... requires political action [and
consumer strategies]” (p. 7). Key strategies include, first, people being aware of
and then exposing how corporations conceal their “connections among
consumption, production and power politics” (p. 7). Second, consumers can
connect and communicate with labourers whose presence and involvement in
the supply chain have been blocked by corporations protecting their pecuniary
interests. These connections can pave the way for both (a) “a new, more
civilized kind of negotiation over what reasonable consumption might consist
of” (Lohmann, 1998, p. 7) and (b) more transparent pricing that acknowledges
hidden oppression, exploitation, and repression. Harken the Fairtrade movement
(Hassoun, 2019).
In Factis Pax
Volume 15 Number 1 (2021): 32-53
http://www.infactispax.org/journal
42
Twenty-first Century Democratic Consumption (2000-onward)
Welfare state and capitalism. Entering the next century, Kroen (2004)
continued the discussion of the redistribution of wealth in a welfare state,
wherein its decline saw “increased consumption as critical to social and political
stability [and democracy]” (p. 729). Sassatelli (2007) bemoaned “the crises of
the welfare system” (p. 125), explaining that the provision of basic needs and
necessities cannot be efficiently provided through the market mechanism.
Pertinent to the argument herein is the idea that, in the process of a
declining welfare state, several key principles of democracy are compromised
leaving citizens at the mercy of the free market where they have to fare for
themselves with no state concern for their welfare. Stroup (2007) downplayed
this argument, asserting instead that enabling individuals to voluntarily consume
a wide range of goods and services increases societal welfare. He affirmed “the
apparent superior ability of economic freedoms to promote non-material
measures of well-being in society” (p. 63). This improved well-being allegedly
reflects the ability of neoliberal decentralization to heighten both market
innovations and consumers’ flexibility (Stroup, 2007).
Bonell and Hilton (2002) asserted that, through democratic
consumerism, citizens in welfare states can use consumerist strategies to
influence the formulation of policy and public goods and services instead of
focusing on the delivery and receipt of said goods and services in the
marketplace. At issue then is whether democracy or the market has failed. In a
backhanded way, democratic consumerism defined thus can be used to
challenge market consumerism, because inequalities in the social welfare state
are addressed before they manifest in marketplace failures and inequalities
(Hugman, 1994). The latter are staved off when people “influence the means
[i.e., policy process] of developing products rather than choosing between
finished products [using] consumerist strategies” (Bonell & Hilton, 2002, p. 29).
Similarly, Stroup (2007) asserted that democratically determined public policies
can superordinate (i.e., become more important than) individual economic
freedoms and choice, which become subservient.
Ethical consumption. With a different focus on markets, Hussain (2012)
discussed ethical consumption, liberal democracy, and whether consumers
should use the market to pursue social change (e.g., democratic principles of
justice, equality, rights, freedom). He claimed that people should view their
decision to use their alleged consumer bargaining power to effect social change
as “part of the wider political process, not a private purchasing decision” (p.
112). This stance reflects that citizens are embedded in a liberal democracy as
well as a capitalistic marketplace. To that end, Hussain (2012) conceptualized
In Factis Pax
Volume 15 Number 1 (2021): 32-53
http://www.infactispax.org/journal
43
social change ethical consumerism (SCEC) and defined it as consuming in way
that creates an economic incentive for others to do the same – akin to the
nineteenth century notion of democratic consumption described by Williams
(1982).
In preparation for this conceptualization, Hussain (2012) acknowledged
three other types of ethical consumerism that reflect changes in one’s own
actions. (a) Clean-hands ethical consumerism involves avoiding certain
merchandise so one is not implicated in immoral production practices. (b)
Expressive ethical consumerism entails intentionally buying something to
express one’s personal beliefs, attitudes, or judgements about certain production,
marketing, or retail practices. (c) Unmediated ethical consumerism involves
changing one’s own buying behaviour to advance a nonmarket agenda (e.g., to
confront child labour).
SCEC strives instead to convince others to change things thereby leading
to more fairness, justice, and equity for all. The responsibility of consumers in a
liberal democracy is thus to find a balance between effecting change through (a)
the market process and (b) the democratic process, which is informed by
procedural values, institutions, and practices (see Table 1). Both approaches
confront power with the former focused on marketplace power and the latter on
political power (Hussain, 2012).
Hussain (2012) further explained that both the market and a democracy
are mechanisms of social change but cautioned that relying solely on market
transactions requires processes that threaten the principles of democracy.
Instead, people should treat “the formal democratic process as the supreme
system for making and changing social rules (including the rules of the market
itself)” (p. 124). He proposed that people using SCEC would see themselves as
representing society as whole. They are thus charged with using their consumer
bargaining power to involve other affected parties to jointly create a solution to
the issue, one that respects the principles of democracy (e.g., people’s basic
liberties and freedoms, their voice and participation in social decision making,
and the rule of law) (see also Lohmann, 1998).
Democratic versus marketplace power. Like Hussain (2012), Hassoun
(2020) discussed consumption, social change, and political philosophy
(including democracy). She maintained that some procedural norms are essential
to arguments justifying liberal democracy, asserting that “only democratic
consumption respects [these] norms” (Hassoun, 2020, p. 150). Basic liberties
(procedural norms) include freedom of thought, movement, assembly, and
expression (Hussain, 2012). Hassoun (2020) posited that “consumption that
promotes social change must respect [these] basic liberties and advance a
reasonable conception of the common good” (p. 143). Otherwise, consumption
In Factis Pax
Volume 15 Number 1 (2021): 32-53
http://www.infactispax.org/journal
44
is construed as undemocratic (i.e., not adhering to democratic principles). To
offset this possibility, people should view using their marketplace bargaining
power as part of the wider democratic process. This perspective entails respect
for several key principles of democracy: basic liberties, political tolerance and
equality, and participation and deliberation in social and political life (Hassoun,
2020).
Using another tactic, Hassoun (2020) first asserted that democratic
consumption is ethical because it promotes democratic change. Then she
claimed that “if democracy is too central” (p. 10) in consumption it can prevent
positive change for the common good. Therein she recognized the argument that
it is alright to consume based on price alone (normally construed as
undemocratic) if people “bring Paerto optimal improvements in preference
satisfaction; they make at least some better off without making anyone worse
off” (p. 145). This is an example of the democratic principle of economic
freedom improving people’s welfare.
Pragmatically, Mattheis (2019) claimed that “the tools of democratic
consumerism broadly [include] activities which can challenge the foundation of
our economy and political system” (pp. 9-10). He conceived democratic
consumerism as limited to consumer decisions that merit the consideration of
others’ vision of the common good, which is necessary to bring about social
change (including changes to the market) (see also Hussain, 2012). Not all
consumer decisions are thus immediately political, nor do they have democratic
implications – only those striving to bring democratic principles to bear.
Respecting this caveat, Mattheis (2019) asserted that “consumers should
generally conform to democratic considerations in their consumption decisions”
(p. 10) and “our ‘overall consumption basket’ should be in accordance with
democratic [principles]” (p. 12).
Diversity and power differentials. Democratic societies are societies of
equals. In that spirit, democratic consumption depends on people viewing
democracy and the actualization “of conditions of equal participation as the
guideline for their general consumption behaviour” (Mattheis, 2019, p. 12).
That is, people must recognize the power differentials that exist within the
consumption process and then consume accordingly (Mattheis, 2019). People’s
use of their purchasing power “should be backed by a sensitivity to diverging
conceptions of the good [and] be justifiable to other persons” (Mattheis, 2019,
p. 11).
Similarly, Stearns (2006) conceptualized the democratization of
consumerism as “homogenizing tendencies across group lines [whereby people
of different class, ethnicity, gender, age, religion and locale eventually gain]
access to consumerism” (p. 55). Stearns referred to this as the democratization
In Factis Pax
Volume 15 Number 1 (2021): 32-53
http://www.infactispax.org/journal
45
of consumer audiences thereby intimating egalitarianism – everyone is equal
and deserving of the same rights and opportunities (key democratic principle).
Hilton (2009), in his discussion of global consumer activism, maintained
that the sheer diversity of global voices advocating for the consumer interest
intimates that consumption is a potentially democratic activity. A key principle of
democracy is political tolerance of diversity where all voices are valued
(MacQuoid-Mason, 1994) even in the consumer arena. As did Kroen (2004),
Hilton (2009) mentioned American postwar “consumer democracy [whereby]
consumers were able to exercise their citizenship not only at the ballot box but on
a daily basis through their participation in the marketplace” (p. 55). Through the
latter, everyone got to “participate in the good life” (Hilton, 2009, p. 55) while
protecting Western democracy against other political ideologies (e.g., fascism and
communism).
Analysis and Discussion of Common Threads and Patterns
Iterative readings of the results revealed several common threads woven
through the democratic consumption literature: the common good, economic
freedom and capitalism, welfare state, ethical consumption, and diverse consumer
interest. There was a consensus that these elements are associated with democratic
consumption but less agreement on how and in what direction. Also, the focus of
democratic consumption (i.e., specific principles) changed over time.
Common Good
The most widely held idea was that democratic consumption serves the
common good, with noteworthy mention that those writing about this connection
did not use the term a common good, which has economic theory connotations
(Crespo, 2016). Authors often used the term the common good without defining
it. Put simply, if something is good for the commons (i.e., the community or
populace as a whole), it benefits the public as a whole and improves the general
welfare of most or all citizens (Lee, 2016).
Although the common good is normally viewed as manifesting in the
realm of politics and public service (Lee, 2016), scholars expounding on
democratic consumption also linked it with the realm of marketplace transactions.
They argued that if people respect the principles of democracy when they
consume, they will enhance the common good. Conversely, purely self-interested
consumer behaviour will detract from the common good. That is, a narrow focus
on the consumer self (necessary for capitalism) can draw attention away from
democratic principles such as transparency, accountability, equality, equity, and
human rights (Brown, 1993; Hassoun, 2020; Mattheis, 2019; Williams, 1982).
In Factis Pax
Volume 15 Number 1 (2021): 32-53
http://www.infactispax.org/journal
46
46
Economic Freedom and Capitalism
A second common thread was the link between economic freedom (a key
democratic principle) and democratic consumption. Freedom means an
unrestricted right or power to think, speak or act. It is Old English freodom,
‘power of self-determination, state of free will’ (Harper, 2021). Freedom in an
economy refers to (a) the market and economic system being relatively free of
government interference; (b) workplaces respecting labourers’ rights; and (c) all
citizens being free to own private goods, experience services, and accumulate
wealth (producers and consumers). The assumption is that this freedom makes
economies and labourers more productive, markets more competitive and
efficient, and it gives consumers more choice (MacQuoid-Mason, 1994).
Two clear lines of thought emerged in the literature. (a) If people do
participate in the capitalistic economy exercising the democratic principle of
economic freedom, they are being democratic consumers. Conversely, (b)
critiquing or refraining from participating in the capitalistic economy constitutes
democratic consumption too, because it favours democratic principles other than
economic freedom. If participating in a market economy as a consumer impinges
on democratic principles, then consumption can be characterized as undemocratic
(Kroen, 2004; Little, 1993).
This ambivalent relationship between democratic consumption and
economic freedom reflects the iffy connection between economics and
democracy. Western (liberal) democracy depends on (a) free trade (nominal
government involvement in economic affairs), (b) laissez faire capitalism
(economy controlled by trade and industry not government), (c) economic
individualism (focus on individuals’ freedom and rights relative to the collective
or common good), (d) the rule of law and (e) the protection of rights and
freedoms so that trade can continue unabated (Harpin, 1999). Conversely, as a
principle of democracy, economic freedom means people must be able to choose
where they work, be protected in that work, spend their earnings, and own what
they buy (private property) (MacQuoid-Mason, 1994). The sketchy element of
this for democratic consumption is the consumption part – how to do this without
being undemocratic?
Welfare State
The link between the welfare state and democratic consumption is a third
theme that manifested in the literature. Most scholars agreed that the loss of the
welfare state paved the way for economic and market superiority (including
consumption). When consumers are faced with faring for themselves in the free
market, they are less able to consume for the welfare of the state (i.e., the
In Factis Pax
Volume 15 Number 1 (2021): 32-53
http://www.infactispax.org/journal
47
47
common good). Their own personal welfare takes precedence, and the only way
they can improve it is to consume in the capitalistic market; government
assistance is curtailed or eliminated when the welfare state declines (Kroen, 2004;
Sassatelli, 2007).
Democracies and welfare states go hand in hand. Social welfare is
supposed to ensure greater equality by providing social benefits, protecting
working people, and constraining capitalism (Kessler-Harris & Vaudagna, 2017).
The recent and ongoing transformation of the global economic order (through
massive redistributions of income and wealth in favor of the elite) has challenged
the welfare state and its fate. These challenges have manifested in constrained
social movement; increased, displaced migrant workers; infringement of family
and gendered rights; and more – all of which drain national surplus (Kessler-
Harris & Vaudagna, 2017). Consumption within this context is undemocratic if it
further threatens the welfare state. Conversely, democratic consumption can shore
up social welfare (Bonell & Hilton, 2002; Engellau, 1984; Hassoun, 2020;
Hugman, 1994; Stroup, 2007).
Ethical Consumption
Fourth, ethical consumerism was associated with democratic consumption
notably when the former concerned getting others to change how they consume so
the common good is privileged. Consumption that is ethical takes into account the
morality of the purchasing situation (McGregor, 2010). Democracy and the
common good are both anchored in morality (Hussain, 2012) – the rightness and
wrongness of a situation – and concern whether harm ensues from a course of
action. This harm is mitigated somewhat if consumption is democratic, meaning
it considers the impact of consuming on democratic principles: human rights,
equity and equality, transparency and accountability, the rule of law, and
tolerance of diversity and a range of voices and perspectives (Hussain, 2012;
Hassoun, 2020; Horowitz, 2004; Williams, 1982).
Diverse Consumer Interest
Finally, democratic consumption encompasses a concern for the consumer
interest. McGregor (2012) explained that “it is in the best interest of consumers
(to their benefit or advantage) to have marketplace failures (the conditions that
affect the realization of their interests) and resultant consumer issues (if a power
imbalance arises) dealt with effectively and expediently, in a sustainable manner”
(p. 4, emphases in original). The consumers’ interest is affected by (a)
consumers’ characteristics and circumstances; (b) relationships between sellers
and consumers; (c) major social issues; (d) economic and fiscal policies; (e)
In Factis Pax
Volume 15 Number 1 (2021): 32-53
http://www.infactispax.org/journal
48
48
corporate, marketing and retail behaviour; and (f) the integrity of specific goods
and services (McGregor, 2012).
Democratic consumption deals with both (a) diverse voices speaking out
for the consumer interest and (b) speaking out for diverse consumers’ interests
(Hilton, 2009; Horowitz, 2004; Lohmann, 1998; Stearns, 2006). The former
pertains to consumer activists from all over the world speaking out for the
interests of consumers. This community of activists reflects the reality that
consumers are not homogenous. Because they are diverse in their identity,
interests, and concerns, a collection of diverse voices is needed to voice
consumers’ interests. This diversity culminated in the formation and continuing
influence of Consumers International originally called the International
Organization of Consumer Unions (IOCU) (Horowitz, 2004).
Per speaking out for diverse interests, consumers’ interests are diverse,
because consumers themselves differ on many aspects (Stearns, 2006): culture,
religion, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, locale, income, occupation, access to
technology and so on. Any or a combination of these and other factors in concert
with businesses’ behaviour can expose consumers to situations where their
interests (i.e., benefits or advantages) are threatened or compromised. Democratic
consumption concerns itself with these eventualities, because democracy respects
political tolerance of diversity, equity, equality, and human rights, which are
closely tied to consumer rights (McGregor, 2010; Stearns, 2006). Mattheis (2019)
urged people to be cognizant of the power differentials informing consumption
and the consumers’ interest so their purchase decisions can be justifiable to
others.
Patterns Over the Centuries
This think piece sought evidence of democratic consumption in the
literature, which scholars traced back over three centuries. The focus tended to
shift over time with each century concerned with different democratic principles
(see Table 2).
Table 2
Democratic Consumption and Democratic Principles Over the Centuries
19th Century (1800s)
20th Century (1900s)
21st Century (2000s)
- egalitarianism and equality
- human rights (dignity)
- economic freedom
- human rights (dignity)
- the rule of law
- equality
- economic freedom
- the rule of law
In Factis Pax
Volume 15 Number 1 (2021): 32-53
http://www.infactispax.org/journal
49
49
- protected rights and freedoms
- political tolerance of diversity
- citizen participation
- accountability and transparency
In the 1800s, democratic consumption was clearly associated with both
the common good and resocializing people to consume for human dignity and
simplicity. Goods and services were symbolic (i.e., imbued with meaning) and
construed as a means of communicating with others. People were urged to spend
in such a way that convinced others to live more simply so that egalitarianism and
equality (democratic principles) could prevail in society.
In the 1900s (20th century), the focus shifted especially in North America
where consumption was linked with saving Western (liberal) democracy. In the
wake of two World Wars, the Great Depression, and the first Cold War
(communism and fascism threats), political voices called for democratic
consumption to preserve the liberal democracy while businesses called for it to
advance laissez faire capitalism. Both the welfare state and capitalism battled it
out with capitalism coming ahead as the forerunner. The principle of economic
freedom dominated this century in concert with the rule of law so the competitive
marketplace could prevail. Economic individualism trumped collectivism.
Consumption that threatened these principles was construed as undemocratic by
some and democratic by others. Democratic consumption also became associated
with consumer rights and human rights.
So far, in the early 2000s (21st century), democratic consumption has
clearly been associated with positive social change, democratic change, ethical
consumption, and consumer activism to protect the diverse consumer interest,
which is threatened by declining welfare states and rising global, corporate-led
capitalism. Concerns for diversity in interests, perspectives, voices, and such
prevail. The end goal is egalitarianism, accountability, transparency, the rule of
law, and the protection of human rights and freedoms especially freedom of
movement, assembly, thought, and expression. Consumer rights remain linked
with human rights, and people are encouraged to influence public policy to thwart
marketplace failures before they happen.
As evident in Table 2, several democratic principles were consistently
linked with democratic consumption (e.g., economic freedom, equality, freedom
and rights, and the rule of law) with the current century the most expansive in its
inclusion of the 12 rights set out in Table One. Five democratic principles were
not linked with democratic consumption: an independent judiciary; control of
government’s abuse of power (especially in the marketplace but also in the policy
arena); anything to do with elections; and multiparty systems (although somewhat
In Factis Pax
Volume 15 Number 1 (2021): 32-53
http://www.infactispax.org/journal
50
50
covered by consumer global activism for diverse consumer voices, perspectives,
and interests). Their exclusion merits further exploration in future research.
Conclusions
The intent of a think piece is to “test ideas and arguments as a precursor to
[future empirical] research” (McGregor, 2018, p. 474). Using an amalgamation of
literature and the author’s thoughts and intellectual insights, a case was made for
the merit of an idea. In this instance, literature pursuant to democratic
consumption was reviewed and presented to stimulate others’ engagement with
this idea. As noted, there was a consensus about five ideas often associated with
democratic consumption but less so on their effect (i.e., direct or inverse, positive
or negative): the common good, economic freedom and capitalism, welfare state,
ethical consumption, and diverse consumer interest. Also, the focus of democratic
consumption temporally shifted with each century being concerned with different
democratic principles.
“Think pieces are legitimate tools for contributing to the cumulative
improvement of theoretical knowledge” (McGregor, 2018, p. 470). Their
development depends on convincing arguments tendered with limited
corroborating empirical evidence. The goal is to raise questions and challenge
thinking while anticipating that others will validate the idea through future study
and experimentation if they judge it meritorious (McGregor, 2018). Consumer,
philosophy, political, social welfare, economic, and peace and conflict theorists
are thus encouraged to tease out what constitutes democratic consumption defined
tentatively herein as behaviour having to do with consumption informed by,
reflective of, and influenced by democratic principles for a myriad of reasons.
References
Aptheker, H. (1955). History and reality. New York, NY: Cameron Associates.
Barr, N. (2020). Economics of the welfare state (6th ed). Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Bonell, C., & Hilton, M. (2002). Consumerism in health care: The case of a UK
voluntary sector HIV prevention organization. Voluntas: International
Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 13(1), 27-46.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014706129061
Bronfenbrenner, M. (1973). Equality and equity. The ANNALS of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, 409(1), 9-23.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1041487
Brown, M. M. (1993). Philosophical studies of home economics in the United
In Factis Pax
Volume 15 Number 1 (2021): 32-53
http://www.infactispax.org/journal
51
51
States. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.
Burkhart, R. E. (2000). Economic freedom and democracy: Post-cold war tests.
European Journal of Political Research, 37(2), 237-253.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.00511
Business Disability International. (2016, June 20). When is equality not equality?
[Web log post]. Retrieved from
https://www.businessdisabilityinternational.org/when-is-equality-not-
equality/
Cohen, R. (2014). The think piece: A guide. Retrieved from University of
California San Diego website: http://profcohen.net/thinkpieceguide.pdf
Consume. (n.d.). In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved from https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/consume
Consumers International. (2021). Consumers International: Coming together for
change. https://www.consumersinternational.org/
Crespo, R. F. (2016). The common good and economics. Cuadernos de
Economía, 39(109), 23-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cesjef.2015.09.001
Dunkelberg, W. (2018, June 6). Economic freedom is essential to democracy.
Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamdunkelberg/2018/06/06/democracy-
and-small-business/
Engellau, P. (1984). The self-destruction of affluence. In N. Miyawaki (Ed.),
Proceedings of the Third Conference on New Problems of Advanced
Economies (pp.198-206). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Gabriel, Y., & Lang, T. (1995). The unmanageable consumer. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Harper, D. (2021). Online etymology dictionary. Lancaster, PA.
www.etymonline.com
Harpin, R. (1999). Liberalism, constitutionalism, and democracy. Oxford,
England: Oxford University Press.
Hassoun, N. (2019). Consumption and social change. Economics & Philosophy,
35(1), 29-47. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026626711800007X
Hassoun, N. (2020). Global health impact. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Hawkins, D. I., Motherbaugh, D. L., & Best, R. J. (2007). Consumer behavior
(10th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Hilton, M. (2009). Prosperity for all: Consumer activism in an era of
globalization. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Horowitz, D. (2004). The anxieties of affluence: Critiques of American consumer
culture, 1939-1979. Boston, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.
Hugman, R. (1994). Consuming health and welfare. In R. Keat, N. Whiteley, &
In Factis Pax
Volume 15 Number 1 (2021): 32-53
http://www.infactispax.org/journal
52
52
N. Abercrombie (Eds.), The authority of the consumer (pp. 192-206).
London, England: Routledge.
Hussain, W. (2012). Is ethical consumerism an impermissible form of
vigilantism? Philosophy & Public Affairs, 40(2), 111-143.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1088-4963.2012.01218.x
Iacocca, L. (1984). Iacocca: An autobiography. London, England: Jonathan
Cape.
Kessler-Harris, A., & Vaudagna, M. (Eds.). (2017). Democracy and the welfare
state. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Kline, W. B., & Farrell, C. A. (2005). Recurring manuscript problems:
Recommendations for writing, training, and research. Counselor
Education and Supervision, 44(3), 166-174.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6978.2005.tb01744.x
Kroen, S. (2004). A political history of the consumer. Historical Journal, 47(3),
709-736. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4091762
Lee, S. (2016). Common good. In B. Duignan (Ed.), Encyclopædia Britannica.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/common-good
Lindsay, J. (2012). Think piece. Retrieved from Brown University website:
https://canvas.brown.edu/courses/202417/pages/writing-assignment-
number-1-think-pieces
Little, S. J. (1993). The Freedom Train: Citizenship and postwar political culture
1946-1949. American Studies, 34(1), 35-67.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40642495
Lohmann, L. (1998, November 1). Consumption and democracy. Keynote at the
People and Planet’s ‘Footprints’ Campaign Launch. University of
Warwick, England.
http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/resource/consumption-and-democracy
MacQuoid-Mason, D. (1994). Street law: Democracy for all. Juta, South Africa:
Street Law Inc.
Mattheis, N. (2019). How democratic must ethical consumerism be? Rerum
Causae, 11(1), https://rc.lse.ac.uk/articles/165/galley/156/download/
McCracken, G. (1988). Culture and consumption. Bloomington, IN: Indiana
University Press.
McGregor, S. L. T. (2001). Neoliberalism and health care. International Journal
of Consumer Studies, 25(2), 82-89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-
6431.2001.00183.x
McGregor, S. L. T. (2010). Consumer moral leadership. Rotterdam, The
Netherlands: Brill/Sense.
McGregor, S. L. T. (2012). Consumer interest research (CIR) primer for policy-
making purposes. Seabright, NS: McGregor Consulting Group.
In Factis Pax
Volume 15 Number 1 (2021): 32-53
http://www.infactispax.org/journal
53
53
http://consultmcgregor.com/documents/research/S_McGregor_report_on_
Consumer_Interest_Research_for_posting.pdf
McGregor, S. L. T. (2017). Consumer responsibilities. In G. Emilien, R.
Weitkunat, & F. Lüdicke (Eds.), Consumer perception of product risks
and benefits (pp. 527-545). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
McGregor, S. L. T. (2018). Understanding and evaluating research. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
McKay-Panos, L. (2012). Freedom of conscience: What it means for Canadians.
LawNow, 36(4), 32-37.
McLean, G. N. (2011). Writing theory, conceptual, and position articles for
publication. In T. S. Rocco & T. Hatcher (Eds.), The handbook of
scholarly writing and publishing (pp. 209–221). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Miller, K. (2019, June 17). 20 advantages and disadvantages of democracy [Web
log post]. Retrieved from https://futureofworking.com/11-advantages-and-
disadvantages-of-democracy/
Sassatelli, R. (2007). Consumer culture: History, theory and politics. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stearns, P. N. (2006). Consumerism in world history (2nd ed.). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Stroup, M. D. (2007). Economic freedom, democracy, and the quality of life.
World Development, 35(1), 52-66.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2006.09.003
Vasquez, I. (2005, December). The central role of economic freedom in
democracy. Issues of Democracy eJournal, 6-9,
https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/articles/200512_vasquez.pdf
Williams, R. H. (1982). Dream worlds: Mass consumption in late nineteenth
century France. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
