1. How do you ‘see’ consumption?

Write different ways of seeing drawing from

three primary readings. (You can choose one reading). (1500 words)

Ans- Consumption or consumer are common terms that one can easily come across every day
in newspapers or in other popular media sources. At first sight, for the uninitiated, It does not
look like a term that need any attention but in reality and for specially students of economy or
an avid market? watchers, it holds immense significance. Apparently, we are living in
consumer’s economy, envisaged by neo-liberal economist, one of the most dominant
branches of political economy formed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Austrian
economist Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973), is considered to be true founder of neoliberalism.
For Von Mises, society, originated not in some social contract but in the inherent character of
the individual; “Egoism is the basic law of society”. All social phenomena are spontaneous,
unplanned outcomes of choices made by rational individuals. Indeed, considering modern
human being as a rational species is the bedrock of consumer economy and that is why it
loathes planned economy and centralisation of power.
Further Von Misses adds “Humans obey the fundamental laws of social cooperation because
they are in the person’s rightly understood self-interest-obedience to law allows maximum
individual freedom, and the pursuit of rightly understood self-interest also assures the highest
attainable degree of general welfare. The Interest of individuals – is the starting point of
liberalism. For Von mises, the consumer interest counts above all other interests, and all
interests are harmonized by market forces, establishing what he called ‘consumer
sovereignty’.
This sociology is the foundation for economic theory of laissez faire, or the free market
economy, which basically argues that harmony exists between consumers and entrepreneurs,
between entrepreneurs and managers and employees and so on. This is economic
interpretation of consumption-oriented society but how anthropologist sees at the practice of
the same? David Graeber (1961-2020), was a maverick scholar of economic anthropology.
His well-known works are Debt-a 5000 years history and Rise of Bullshit Jobs. In his essay
on Consumption, he explains the way consumption is perceived by people and what it really
means for consumer herself. He thinks that sufficient attention has not been paid by
historians, sociologist and indeed anthropologist on this very fascinating aspect of human
lives. Despite of being a tremendous force acknowledged and studied by economists, it has
slipped under the radar of another humanities research.
He asks a very pertinent question right at the beginning that how consumption has
encapsulated every activity that a person does, from watching television to purchasing trivial
stuffs or from reading newspaper to actually eating food are all in a way consumption. We
consume news or cinema, purchasing of refrigerator or food items makes us a consumer and
our preferences and behaviour are of critical importance to the market. The conventional
view is that of consumption is an ultimate symbol of materialistic culture and is an agent of
decadence, frowned universally by intelligentsia. The insatiable appetite for self-gratification
fuels it, where we consume things that we do not even need. Actually, most of the articles
that we purchase can be avoided. The consumers are victims of cunning marketing tactics and
shrewd advertising strategies which overpowers their sense of rationality and prevents any
logical decision from being made.
This interpretation does make sense when we read this while keeping the images in mind of
videos that we regularly come across in media about serpentine line waiting for the latest
mobile phone or sneaker outside outlets or riots or stampede braking out in superstore on the
eve of sale. From Black Friday sales to flash sales, corporations have found myriad ways to
sneak into our wallet. In this day of data driven business, our choices and like have a great
value. Based on these choices, we are daily bombarded by advertisements that assaults our
senses to the point of making it numb. So, the criticism of today’s consumer being senseless
and naïve holds some water. But David has some other ideas which breaks this
understanding. He believes that a consumer has a mind of her own which is perfectly capable
of taking rational decision. Instead of big brands and multinational corporations reigning over
that mind, it’s the consumer that influences them with their ideas and individuality. They
have appropriated whatever thrown their way into their own style and given it completely
new form and colour. David claims that conventional view is ‘elitist’ and ‘puritanical’. It
admonishes the same set of people which they want to change. This needs to be recognised
that a consumer has its own thoughts and observations which is mobilised before any
investment is done. The world today is more urbanised, wealthy than ever before and at the
same time people inhabiting the same space are living a mechanised, dull, monotonous life.
Nuclear family has become norm and roots has been snapped thereby leaving human beings
emotionally drained. She finds peace and solace in consumerism and brands are the new
relatives. Paying obeisance to our favourite brands is new ritual and those days are not far
when Black Friday sales will replace yesteryears festivals. Already, Christmas sales, Diwali
shopping festivals make more buzz than festival itself. Newspapers are replete with figures
that spending by people during or a day after Diwali.
Brands have kept pace with this great upheaval in social relationships. They have come to
understand that people search for meaning in the clothes they wear, music that they listen or
watches they adore, from cars to sarees, shaving kit to washing soaps, everything is marketed
today with the intention of forging a personal bond with targeted consumer. So, the watch is
not just for showing time, it’s a piece of art that proclaims your arrival and suits make you ‘A
COMPLETE MEN’. Undergarments have exceeded its brief and now are supposed to make
you confident from inside. Whatever that means. Capitalism has a cunning habit of
reinventing itself and finding our weakest spots where it hits the hardest. It has appropriated
all the subversive, revolutionary thoughts like feminism, socialism, LGBTQ rights, racial
equality etc and produced as well as marketed their product which magically been come to be
identified with these ideologies. So, New Balance sneakers in USA became favourite of
Trump supporters while Balenciaga come to become darling of new generation fashion
conscious people willing to try radical (read atrocious) design.
Consumption also is an outlet where culture, subculture and counterculture all found an
opportunity to express themselves and find an eager audience willing to appreciate them. As
mentioned earlier, anthropology has different take on consumption. The common definition is
“any activity that involves the purchase, use or enjoyment of any manufactured or natural
product for any purpose other than the production or exchange of new commodities “but
anthropologist also sees it as a creative form of self-expression. Historically, in English and
French language, the word consumption had a negative connotations which meant to be
utterly overpowered or devoured by something like fire, rage, passion etc. When the activity
of consumption takes place, its subject is no more under his/her own senses. Thanks to Adam
smith and David Ricardo, who rescued this term and gave it current place as an activity
which is opposite of production. The consumption is a manifestation of old human desire, to
be loved and appreciated, to attract attention and praise from fellow members of society. The
consumer goods, which is a recent entrant in human history, is not a necessity, After all
human being has survived and build great cities, erected colossal structures and created
magnificent piece of art without toaster, refrigerator and vacuum cleaners at their disposal.
They are object of desire and liable to change with time.
Another perspective is given by Colin Campbell, in his book Romantic ethic and spirit of
Modern consumerism, where he identifies it with modern version of hedonism. Earlier it was
sex, revelry, public drinking and rituals- ‘direct experience of pleasure’. That traditional
hedonism is now expressed via consumerism. The consumer dreams about how it would be
like to adorn a particular dress or jewellery, the daydreaming itself gives certain pleasure that
can not be defined in words but only be felt in spirit.
David has given a comprehensive account of medieval roots of consumption. It provided
power to people. Those who had the means acquired finest ensemble and those less fortunate
ones settled for imitation, nonetheless individual urge to stand apart from the crowd while
leaving in the society provided boost to the production. At the end, consumption appeals to
deepest most primeval part of human existence and that is the longing for private property
which according to celebrated economist Friedrich von Hayek is behind birth of civilizations.
This consumption has also deleterious effect on our ecosystem but that part of the picture is
out of scope of this essay.
Q-2- How do you engage with ‘anthropological concerns’ about CSR. Elaborate on
the basis of the readings provided. (You can pick one reading). (1500 words)
Ans- Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has been in the news quite a lot off lately and
has become a major force in government policy documents. Right from mid-day meal to
needs of budding sportsperson and from education to water management, funds generated
from it have taken a front seat in contribution. Government, reeling from funds deficit, have
started to tap corporate bodies for money for crucial social sector development. Not only
funds, contribution has been sought and given in skill building by hiring international experts
too. But first, it is important to get acquainted with the formal definition and history of CSR.
Investopedia defines CSR as ‘Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a self-regulating
business model that helps a company be socially accountable to itself, its stakeholders, and
the public. By practicing corporate social responsibility, also called corporate citizenship,
companies can be conscious of the kind of impact they are having on all aspects of society,
including economic, social, and environmental. To engage in CSR means that, in the ordinary
course of business, a company is operating in ways that enhance society and the environment
instead of contributing negatively to them.
It further adds “Corporate social responsibility is a business model by which companies make
a concerted effort to operate in ways that enhance rather than degrade society and the
environment. CSR helps both improve various aspects of society as well as promote a
positive brand image of companies. Corporate responsibility programs are also a great way to
raise morale in the workplace. CSRs are often broken into four categories: environmental
impacts, ethical responsibility, philanthropic endeavours, and financial responsibilities.”
India has long history of wealthy merchants and traders contributing to society. Religious
traditions of daan, seva, and zakat operated in India for centuries helping to shape the
relationship between the privileged and the dispossessed. The vast majority of philanthropy
in India has always been to religious institutions and that continued to be the case till modern
times. Indian temples are the some of the richest religious establishment in the world, all
provided by adherents of the faith generously. These temples in turn use wealth to run
hospitals, schools, colleges and community kitchens. The earliest industrialists of the 19th
Century launched the practices of corporate giving via trusts, and endowed institutions
controlled by members of business families. It was done more with the intention of earning
piety and religious merit than with the people’s welfare in mind. Temple construction,
construction of water embankments, Dharamshala at pilgrimage centres were some of the
ways through which wealthy citizens contributed at local level. One unique way was the
Marwari kitchens, established by whole community which is known for its business acumen
and wealth. These kitchens became famous for providing hygienic vegetarian meal at low
cost. Similarly, community langars, mass marriage at local level funded by local elite are
some other forms of contribution.
The 2013 Companies Act for the first-time mandates that private corporations join public
sector firms in annual donations for Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). All firms with
net worth above Rs 500 crore, turnover over Rs 1,000 crore, or net profit over Rs 5 crore are
required under Section 135 to spend at least 2% of their annual profits (averaged over 3
years) and establish a CSR committee to oversee the spending. The rising gap in the Indian
society, especially after liberalisation sparked innovation in efforts by the corporate sector to
address social problems. It also led the State to think about how to pull in more support from
the booming business world. In the context of a shrinking State, a more globalised economy,
and great divisions in economic and social worlds, CSR came to the rescue of many
government programmes.
The CSR has in recent times attracted bad press and critical scrutiny from academicians and
journalist around the world. Terms like Green washing have come to define the new CSR. At
this point it is crucial to understand this term, Investopedia defines it as “the process of
conveying a false impression or misleading information about how a company’s products are
environmentally sound. Greenwashing involves making an unsubstantiated claim to deceive
consumers into believing that a company’s products are environmentally friendly or have a
greater positive environmental impact than they actually do. In addition, greenwashing may
occur when a company attempts to emphasize sustainable aspects of a product to overshadow
the company’s involvement in environmentally damaging practices. Performed through the
use of environmental imagery, misleading labels, and hiding trade-offs, sponsoring big ticket
events and presenting a benign face in general through advertisements.”
A very fine example of Greenwashing, and thereby CSR gone rogue is ARAMCO or Shell,
world’s largest hydrocarbon corporations organising climate summits or becoming sponsors
to such talks. Big apparel brands like H&M, UCB and others sending a message of
sustainability through their fashion shows while outsourcing their cloth manufacturing to
third world countries like Bangladesh, India, Sri Lanka, where labour rights are poorly
followed and workers are paid ridiculously low amount of wages while working for inhuman
hours at hazardous workplaces. K Ravi Raman has thrown light of the real life experience of
villagers in Kerala when they came across multinational giant COCA COLA. He has a very
scathing take on the culture of Multinational corporations. He thinks that they are new tool of
colonization and made nation state and boundaries redundant through their capital and
technology. Governments all over the world are withdrawing themselves from regulating
these behemoths in the name of ease of doing business which leaves common folks at mercy
of these giants. Not until a major disaster breaks out, like Enron scandal in USA, Union
carbide led Bhopal gas tragedy in India, Deep water Horizon oil leak in Gulf of MEXICO by
British Petroleum etc, Government swung into action and ignores all the call and protest prior
to such cataclysmic events which does irreversible damages to the lives of people and
environment.
Post decade of development i.e. 1970s, Big corporations went on hyper drive to cut input cost
and push profit margins, That happened through downsizing, cutting wages, moving
businesses to poor countries, and acquiring natural resources at break neck speed. Raman
calls it ‘accumulation by dispossession’. At the same time many MNCs were exposed of their
wrongdoings like Nestle, Monsanto, Nike and Gap. To shield themselves from political and
public wrath, they reinvented themselves as responsible organisations who have genuine
interest in community development and sustainable business practices. Raman brings the case
of ecological destruction in Kerala as a case study to expose the gap between words and
deeds of global businesses. Coca cola does not have a good track record and has been called
out in many countries like Mexico, Guatemala, Philippines and in their home country USA
too. While it has loft goals of community engagement and also spelt our five priority areas-
profit, people, portfolio, partners, and planet, it deeds is far from been called planet or people
friendly. It has also pledged to take part in a global water initiative to ensure the sustainable
use of water resources in their business,6 as well as a stakeholder forum to engage with
environmental issues related to water resources.
Coca Cola entered India in 1991 and quickly become its largest Foreign direct investor. A
country that desperately needed investment and jobs, Indian government gave red carpet
treatment and environmental rules and regulations were tossed out of window. But reality
began to surface soon enough when villages in Rajasthan and UP faced acute water scarcity
due to its operations. Next in line to face the wrath of this company was Plachimada in
Kerala. It not sucked up the water, but also discharged effluents making whatever left water
unfit for use. The factories became site of protest by villagers. Even worse, the consumption
of this polluted water had resulted in widespread sickness and ill health, with the villagers
becoming highly prone to a variety of skin and stomach disorders.
Coca cola countered the trouble by citing its best CSR practices and its commitment to
environment. It showed the rain water harvesting structures that it has constructed and
schools it has helped in refurbishing. Thus, these works quickly became a tool to thwart off
any accusation of wrongdoing.
In conclusion, we can safely submit that CSR, must not be allowed to mask off the
exploitative practices committed by MNCs. Companies, however benign in its intention and
with lofty promises towards people, are always going to aim for profit while cutting input
prices. They can not take the responsibility which actually belongs to the state. So,
Government should depend more on taxation rather then waiting for their largesse to be
bestowed on people.