But addressing consump tion is also vital in reducing the impact of society on its environ ment The concept of sustainable consumption is a response to this But the debates about sustainable consumption can only really be understood in the context o ID: 12493
Download Pdf The PPT/PDF document "STATE OF THE DEBATE Live Better by Consu..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
STATEOFTHEDEBATELiveBetterbyConsumingIsThereaDoubleDividendinSustainableTimJackson SummaryIndustrialecologyhasmainlybeenconcernedwithimprovingtheefÞciencyofproductionsystems.Butaddressingconsump-tionisalsovitalinreducingtheimpactofsocietyonitsenviron-ment.Theconceptofsustainableconsumptionisaresponsetothis.Butthedebatesaboutsustainableconsumptioncanonlyreallybeunderstoodinthecontextofmuchwideranddeeperdebatesaboutconsumptionandaboutconsumerbehaviorit-self.Thisarticleexploressomeofthesewiderdebates.Inpar-ticular,itdrawsattentiontoafundamentaldisagreementthatrunsthroughtheliteratureonconsumptionandhauntsthedebateonsustainableconsumption:thequestionofwhether,ortowhatextent,consumptioncanbetakenasÔÔgoodforus.ÕÕSomeapproachesassumethatincreasingconsumptionismoreorlesssynonymouswithimprovedwell-being:themoreweconsumethebetteroffweare.Othersargue,justasve-hemently,thatthescaleofconsumptioninmodernsocietyisbothenvironmentallyandpsychologicallydamaging,andthatwecouldreduceconsumptionsigniÞcantlywithoutthreaten-ingthequalityofourlives.ThissecondviewpointsuggeststhatakindofÔÔdoubledividendÕÕisinherentinsustainableconsump-tion:theabilitytolivebetterbyconsuminglessandreduceourimpactontheenvironmentintheprocess.IntheÞnalanalysis,thisarticleargues,suchÔÔwin-winÕÕsolutionsmayexistbutwillrequireaconcertedsocietalefforttorealize. KeywordsconsumerbehaviorconsumerchoiceconsumercultureevolutionarypsychologyindustrialecologysymbolicinteractionismAddresscorrespondenceto:Prof.TimJacksonCentreforEnvironmentalStrategyUniversityofSurreyGuildfordGU27XHUnitedKingdom©2005bytheMassachusettsInstituteofTechnologyandYaleUniversityVolume9,Number1Ð2JournalofIndustrialEcology STATEOFTHEDEBATEIndustrialEcologyandOverthepastdecadeorso,industrialecol-ogyhassuccessfullyfocusedattentiononim-provingtheresourceefÞciencyofthesystemsofproduction.Reusing,remanufacturing,andrecyclingend-of-lifeproducts,usingthewastesofoneproductionprocessasinputstoan-other,andredesigningproducts,processes,andsupplychainsforimprovedefÞciencyallofferclearenvironmentalbeneÞtstoindustrialsociety(GeyerandJackson2004;GraedelandAllenby1995;GuideandvanWassenhove2004;JacksonOverthesamedecade,ithasbecomeincreas-inglyclearthatsuchinterventionswillnot,bythemselves,deliversustainabledevelopment.ItisnotenoughforustodeviseevermoreefÞ-cientindustrialprocesses.Itisnotenoughtoengineercleanerandmoreclevertechnologies.Itisnotenoughthatwedesigngreenerandmoreethicalproducts.Allofthesethingsareclearlyimportant.Butnoneofthemwillensurethatconsumerschoosetobuythegreenerprod-uctsorthattheofmaterialthroughputre-mainswithinecologicallimits.Purelytechnolog-icalapproachesfallshortofaddressingthecrucialdimensionofhumanchoiceinimplementingsus-tainabletechnologiesandinchangingunsustain-ableconsumptionpatterns(JacksonandClift1998;Princenetal.2002;RaynerandMalonePartlyinrecognitionofthisfact,attentionhasturnedincreasinglytoquestionsofconsumption(JacobsandR¿pke1999;Princenetal.2002;ReischandR¿pke2004).Thescaleandpatternofconsumption,thedriversofconsumerexpec-tationsandbehaviors;thenatureofconsumerdecision-makingprocesses,andtheimportanceofshiftingconsumerattitudes,behaviors,andex-pectationsinfavorofcleanerproductsandre-ducedenvironmentalimpacts:allofthesefac-torsturnouttobevitalinachievingsustainabledevelopment.Reßectingthisemerginginterest,thetermsustainableconsumptionnowfeaturesasanorganizingprincipleinawidevarietyofre-searchagendasandpolicyinitiatives(CohenandMurphy2001;DEFRA2003;HeapandKent2000;OECD1998;UNEP2001).Asyetnoclearagreementhasbeenreachedonwhatsustainableconsumptionactuallymeans.Someapproachesfocusontheroleoftechno-logicalinnovationandÒgettingthepricesrightÓandemphasizeÒconsumingdifferentlyÓratherthanÒconsuminglessÓ(UNDP1998).Othersimplyafarmoreradicalcritiqueinwhichsus-tainableconsumptionisaboutÒthemanagementofgreedÓ(Slesser1997;Trainer1996)inaf-ßuentsocieties.Neitherofthesepositionsisunequivocallyuseful:theÞrstbecauseitofferslittlenewtoexistingpolicyagendas;thesec-ondbecauseitunderestimatesthecomplexityofhumanmotivationsandrisksalienatingthosewhosebehavioritseekstochange.Nonetheless,thenewagendademandsthatweresolveatleastsomeofthecriticalquestionsrelatingtoconsumption.Inparticular,weÞndourselvesconfrontedbytheveryrealneedtoen-surethatenvironmentalgainsachievedthroughsustainableproductionarenotoffsetbyreboundeffects,thatentrenchedbehaviorsdonotren-dersustainabletechnologiesredundant,andthatthecontinuedexpansionofconsumerexpecta-tionanddemanddoesnotsimplyswamptheef-Þciencygainsmadethroughindustrialecology.Inshort,wearedrawntowardtheneedforaclearerunderstandingofconsumerbehaviorandhumanchoice.Whydoweconsume?Whatdoweexpecttogainfrommaterialgoods?Howsuccess-fulareweinmeetingthoseexpectations?Whatconstrainsourchoices?Andwhatdrivesourex-pectationsintheÞrstplace?Allthesequestionsbecomevitallyimportantinthesearchforanunderstandingofconsumerbehaviortoinformsustainabledevelopment.Theprobleminaddressingthesequestionsliesnotsomuchinadearthofpotentialmod-elsasinasuperabundanceofpossibilities.FromtheAristotelianconceptof(theÒin-satiabledesireformoreÓ)toThorstenVeblenÕsnotionofconspicuousconsumption;fromPierreBordieuÕsanalysisofsocialdistinctiontoFredHirschÕsconceptofÒpositionalgoodsÓ;fromJeanBaudrillardÕssemioticanalysistoMaryDouglasÕsÒsymbolicinteractionismÓ;fromthehumanis-ticpsychologyofAbrahamMaslowandErichFrommtothebiologicalanalogiesofEdwardWilsonandRichardDawkins;fromJohnKennethGalbraithÕssociopoliticalcritiqueoftheJournalofIndustrialEcology STATEOFTHEDEBATEafßuentsocietytoJulietSchorÕsÒdownshiftingÓandDuaneElginÓsÒvoluntarysimplicityÓ:thelit-eratureonconsumptionisrepletewithdifferentapproachestoconsumptionanddifferentmodelsofthewaysinwhichconsumersbehave.Eachsuchmodelarisesfromaslightlydiffer-entsetofdisciplinaryassumptions,adoptssome-timesradicallydifferentunderlyingassumptionsabouthumannature,andembodiesdifferentcon-ceptionsofwhatitmeanstopursuethegoodlife.Makingsenseofthisdiversityisbeyondthescopeofthis,orindeedanysinglejournalarti-cle.AnumberofrecentreviewshaveattemptedtoreviewthissomewhatÒunmanageableÓlitera-ture(Bagozzietal.2002;Bocock1993;Edwards2000;GabrielandLang1995;Jackson2005;JacksonandMichaelis2003;Michaelis2000;Miller1995;R¿pke1999;Sanne2002).Thepurposeofthisarticleistoexploreaspe-ciÞcÒdialecticalÓtensionthatrunsthroughtheliteratureonconsumptionandhauntsthedebateonsustainableconsumption.Mostsimplyput,itisthequestionofwhetherandtowhatextentcurrentlevelsandpatternsofconsumptionareorarenotÒgoodforusÓÑnotjustintermsofenvironmentalimpactbutintermsofindivid-ualandcollectivewell-being.Someapproachesassumethatincreasingconsumptionismoreorlesssynonymouswithimprovedwell-being:themoreweconsumethebetteroffweare.Otherapproachesargue,justasvehemently,thatthescaleofconsumptioninmodernsocietyisbothenvironmentallyandpsychologicallydamaging,andthatwecouldreduceconsumptionconsider-ablywithoutthreateningthequalityofourlives.TheÞrstperspectivetendstoregardconsumersasfreetochoosethebestwayofpursuingtheÒgoodlifeÓaccordingtoindividualtastesandprefer-ences.ThesecondperspectiveregardsmodernconsumersocietyasbeinglockedintoakindofÒsocialpathologyÓÑdriventoconsumebyamix-tureofgreed,socialnorms,andthepersuasivepowerofunscrupulousproducers.Thissecondperspectiveisinterestinginpar-ticularbecauseittendstosuggestthatakindofÒdoubledividendÓmightbeassociatedwithsustainableconsumptionÑjustasindustrialecol-ogyhasarguedthatadoubledividendisasso-ciatedwithsustainableproduction.Ifthecon-sumerwayoflifeisÑasPaulWachtel(1989)hassuggestedÑbothecologicallydamagingandpsychologicallyßawed,thenthepossibilityre-mainsthatwecouldlivebetterbyconsuminglessandreduceourimpactontheenvironmentatthesametime.Buthowrealisticisthisper-spective?Isitconsistentwithfundamentalunder-standingsaboutconsumerbehaviorandhumanmotivation?Doesitreßectsociallyachievableandculturallyrelevantambitions?Orisitsim-plyadelusionbasedonutopianunderstandingsofhumannature?AndÑtotheextentthatitisvalidÑwhatdoesthisperspectiveimplyintermsofpoliciesforbehavioralchangeinpursuitofsustainableconsumption?Thisarticlesetsouttoaddressthesequestionsthroughanexplorationofthewiderliteratureonconsumptionandcon-sumerbehavior.Itargues,ultimately,thatthepossibilityofadoubledividendcannotentirelyberuledout,butthatrealizingitwillrequirecon-siderablymorethanwishfulutopianthinkingorangryecologism.ConsumptionasWell-BeingThestartingpointforthisexplorationisanelaborationoftheviewthat,insomesimplesense,theconsumptionofgoodsandservicesisanattempttoprovideforourindividualand(attheaggregatelevel)collectivewell-being.Thisviewofconsumptionis,atitssimplest,theoneencodedinconventionaleconomics.Alltransac-tionsinthemarketareassumedtorepresenttherationalchoicesofinformedconsumers.InthisÒrationalchoicemodel,Ótheconsumerisvisual-izedasaÒrationalactor,Óattemptingtomaximizewell-beingorÒutilityÓwithintheconstraintsofthemarket,accordingtohisorherownindi-vidualpreferences(RussellandWilkinson1979,e.g.).Thisutilitarianmodelhasbecomesowidelyacceptedthatmostmoderneconomicstextbooksbarelyevendiscussitsoriginsorquestionitsau-thenticity.Mas-Colellandcolleagues(1995),forexample,assertthatÒitislogicaltotaketheas-sumptionofpreferencemaximizationasaprimi-tiveconceptforthetheoryofconsumerchoice.ÓBeggandcolleagues(2003)simplyÒassumethattheconsumerchoosestheaffordablebundle[ofgoods]thatmaximizeshisorherutility.ÓEconomicsitselftendstobesilent,however,onthenatureororiginsofindividualpreferences.,LiveBetterbyConsumingLess? STATEOFTHEDEBATEConsumerchoicetheory,followingSamuelson(1938),restricteditselflargelytoderivingde-mandfunctionsforconsumergoodsontheba-sisofÒrevealedpreferencesÓinthemarket.Inotherwords,accordingtothistheory,thebestwecansayaboutconsumerpreferencesiswhatwecaninferaboutthemfromthepatternsofex-penditureonconsumergoodsinthemarket.Ifthedemandforaparticularbrandofcar,washingmachine,orvideorecorderishigh,thenwecaninferthatconsumers,ingeneral,preferthatbrandoverotherbrands.Thereasonsforthispreferenceremainopaquewithineconomics,asdotherea-sonsforchoosingsportsutilityvehicles,tumbledryers,andDVDplayersover,say,ecoholidaysorleisureactivities(Schor1998).MoresophisticatedattemptstounderstandtheeconomicbasisofconsumerpreferencesweremadebyKelvinLancaster(1966).LancasterÕsproposedthatconsumerpreferencesforgoodsareformedonthebasisnotoftheproductsthem-selves,butoftheattributesthatthoseproductspossessandthevaluesofthoseattributesforindi-vidualconsumers.Theeconomictheoryofchoiceconstructedfromthissuggestionhasprovedcon-siderablymorecomplexthanconventionalpref-erencetheory.Nonetheless,ithasbeenwidelyemployedanddevelopedtoexploreconsumerpreferencesforproductattributesinsectorsasdiverseasfood(Crawford2003;PhilippidisandHubbard2003,e.g.),luxurycars(Anuritetal.1999),healthcare(RyanandBate2001),andrenewableenergyinvestments(Bergmannetal.2004).Onceagain,however,thetheoryofcon-sumerchoiceßowingfromtheLancastermodeldoesnotattempttounpacktheunderlyingso-cialorsocial-psychologicalstructureofconsumerpreferences.Itsimplysuggeststhatitispossibletoinferthesepreferencesfromthechoicescon-sumersmakeinthemarket.ConsumerpreferencetheoryanditsextensiontoattributesweredevelopedtoapplyspeciÞcallytoeconomictransactions,thatis,basically,toconsumersÕpurchasingbehaviors.ButthesamerationalchoicemodelhasalsobeenappliedintheattempttounderstandpeopleÕsnonpurchasingbehaviors.Perhapsthebest-knownapplicationofrationalchoicetononpurchasingbehaviorsistheworkofGaryBecker,whose(1976)EconomicAp-proachtoHumanBehaviorand(1981)TreatiseontheFamilywonhimtheNobelPrize.Beckerusedtheconceptofhumancapitaltounderstandap-parentlynoneconomichouseholdbehaviorssuchasdivorce,theincreaseinwomenÕsparticipationinthelaborforce,thedistributionofchild-rearingandhouseholdlaborbetweenmenandwomen,andsoon.Consistentwiththeirrootsinanthropologi-caltheoriesofsocialexchange(Homans1961),rationalchoicemodelsseeexchangeasafun-damentaldeterminantofhumanbehavior.Thetradeineconomicgoodsandservicesisonlyoneaspectofsocialexchange.Atabroaderlevel,ac-cordingtothisextendedrationalchoicemodel,weexchangeavarietyofdifferentgoods(time,gifts,labor,criticalappreciation,sexualservices,andsoon)intheexpectationthat(atleastoverthelongterm)theseexchangeswillbeneÞtourownself-interest.Asweshallseeinalatersec-tion,theimportanceofexchangeisalsoempha-sizedbysocialanthropologicalperspectivesonImplicit(andsometimesexplicit)withintheeconomicperspectiveistheassumptionthathu-manwantsareessentiallyinÞnite.Thedesireforaparticularcommoditywilleventuallypeakanddecline;butthedesireforcommoditiesingeneralistakentobeinsatiable.SomeeconomistsevenadoptinsatiabilityastheconceptualfoundationfortheÒeconomicproblemÓ:namely,thealloca-tionoflimitedresourcesinthefaceofunlimitedwants(Anderton2000).Inthisway,theinsatia-bilityofconsumerdesirebecomesasortofide-ologicalassumptionattheheartofeconomics.Whatemergesfromthisassumptionistheideathatthemoreweconsume(ineconomicterms)thebetteroffweare.Conversely,iftheaimofso-ciety(andpublicpolicy)istoachievecontinualimprovementinwell-being,thentheappropri-atewayofachievingthisistopursueeverhigherlevelsof(economic)consumption(VincentandPanayotou1997).Theequationofeconomicconsumptionwithwell-beinggoesalongwaytowardexplainingtheprimacyofmeasuressuchasGDPinpublicpolicyterms(Jackson2002a).Itdoesnot,however,takeusveryfartowardanunderstandingofthecom-plexityofconsumermotivations.Nordoesitoffermuchthatisnewinthewayofpoliciesforsustain-ableconsumption.Theprincipaltaskforpolicy,JournalofIndustrialEcology STATEOFTHEDEBATEunderthisview,istoensurethatthemarketisworkingefÞciently,thatexternalcostsareinter-nalizedinresourceprices,andthatconsumershaveaccesstoadequateinformationabouttheirownconsumptionchoices.Thesestrategiesareundoubtedlyimportant.Buttheyhavenotbeenoutstandinglysuccessfulinthepastinachiev-ingbehavioralchange.Nordotheyexhausttherangeofpossiblepolicyinterventionssuggestedbyadeeperunderstandingofconsumerbehavior(Jackson2005;JacksonandMichaelis2003).Ironically,practitionersintheÞeldhavebeenconsiderablymoreinquisitiveaboutthenatureandoriginsofconsumermotivationsthaneco-nomictheoristshave.Newareasofinquirysuchasconsumerpsychology,marketing,andÒmotiva-tionresearchÓhavedevelopedaratherrichbodyofknowledgeÑaÒscienceofdesireÓ(Dichter1964)Ñforproducers,retailers,marketers,andadvertiserswantingtoknowhowtodesignandsellproductsthatconsumerswillbuy.Littleofthisresearchconcernsitselfexplicitlywiththeenvi-ronmentalorsocialimpactsofconsumption.Butitsinsightsarecrucialtoaproperunderstandingofconsumerbehavior.Muchoftheinspirationforthisbodyofresearchisdrawnfromoutsideeconomics,fromdisciplinessuchashumanisticpsychology,sociobiology,andanthropology.Be-causetheseÞeldsarediscussedinmoredetailbe-low,discussionofcertainkeyinsightsfromcon-sumerresearchisdeferredtosubsequentsections.ConsumerCultureasaSocialThoughÞrmlyentrenchedinmoderninsti-tutionsandpolicies,theconventionaleconomicviewofconsumerbehaviorstandsonly,ifitstandsatall,inthefaceofastormofprotest.Theen-vironmentallobbyhasbeenparticularlyvocif-erousindenouncingtheeconomicmodelbothforitsfailuretoprotecttheenvironmentandfortheoversimplicityofitsunderlyingconceptionofhumannature(Schumacher1973;Douthwaite1992;Norgaard1994;Daly1996;vandenBerghetal.2000;Wilson2001).CritiquesoftheconsumersocietyarenotconÞnedtotheGreenlobby;noraretheyen-tirelymodern.Evenintheseventeenthcentury,Hobbeshadnotedthepervasiveanxietyofaso-cietycharacterizedbyunlimitedmaterialistval-ues;inthenineteenthcentury,Marx(andmanyothers)decriedtheÒfetishismofcommoditiesÓthatcharacterizedcapitalism.Onthecuspofthetwentiethcentury,ThorstenVeblen([1899]1998)articulatedatendencytowardÒconspic-uousconsumption.ÓInTheTheoryoftheLeisure,hecontrastedtheÒdestructivetraitsÓoftheÒpecuniarycultureÓwiththeÒindustrialvirtuesÓofearliertimes.Inthespaceoflessthanacenturypecuniaryculturehadestablishedanirongriponmodernsocialmores.Butithadalsogeneratedahostofcritics,allofwhomwereskepticalÑinslightlydifferentwaysÑofthepowerofincreasedconsumptiontodelivereverhigherlevelsofsat-MurrayBookchin(writinginthe1960sun-derthepseudonymLewisHerber)arguedthathumansocietyhadÒreachedalevelofanonymity,socialatomisationandspiritualisolationvirtuallyunprecedentedinhumanhistoryÓ(Herber1963,187).Fromm(1976)wasalarmedatthealienationandpassivitythatpervadedmodernlife,andplacedtheblamesquarelyonaneconomicsystempredicatedonincreasinglev-elsofconsumption.IvanIllich(1977)attackedtheideologythatequatesprogresswithafßuenceandneedswithcommodities.InattemptingtodiscoverwhyÒunprecedentedandfast-movingprosperityhadleftitsbeneÞciariesunsatisÞed,ÓScitovsky(1976)highlightedtheaddictivena-tureofconsumerbehavioranditsfailuretomir-rorthecomplexityofhumanmotivationandThesecriticshavetosomeextentbeensup-portedbyempiricalevidence.InTheJoylessEcon-,Scitovskycouldalreadycitethefailureofreportedlevelsofwell-beingtomatchthegrowthinGDP(Scitovsky1976).In1991,ErikJacobsandRobertWorcesterfoundthatpeopleweremarginallylesshappythantheyhadbeenin1981inspiteofincreasedpersonalincome(Worcester1998).AsimilarresultwasreportedoveralongerperiodbyMyersandDiener(1996).Oswald(1997)foundthatreportedlevelsofÒsat-isfactionwithlifeÓwereonlymarginallyhigherthantheyhadbeeninthemid-seventies.Insomecountries,includingBritain,theywereactuallylower.ThemostrecentevidencesuggestsaweakpositivecorrelationbetweenincreasingGDPand,LiveBetterbyConsumingLess? STATEOFTHEDEBATElife-satisfactioninsomedevelopednations.ButinBritain,theUnitedStates,andanumberofothercountries,reportedlife-satisfactionhasre-mainedalmostunchangedforthelast30years(Donovanetal.2002).Meanwhile,intheUnitedStates,Òratesofde-pressionhavebeendoublingeverydecade,sui-cideisthethirdmostcommoncauseofdeathamongyoungadultsinNorthAmerica,[and]15%ofAmericanshavehadaclinicalanxi-etydisorderÓ(Wright1994,p.53).Byaper-versecontrast,studiesofhumanhappinessre-vealthatsomeofthepoorestcountriesintheworldÑBangladesh,Azerbaijan,andNigeria,forexampleÑareamongthehappiestintheworld(Worcester1998).Morerecently,Kasser(2002)accumulatesanimpressivebodyofevidencetotheeffectthatmaterialisticbehaviorscommandahighpriceintermsofhumanwell-being.Thisfar-reachingsocialcritiqueofconsumersocietyhasdrawnconsiderablestrengthfromtheemergenceofhumanisticpsychologyandthede-velopmentofaneeds-theoreticbasisforhumanwell-being(Maslow1954;Galtung1990;Lederer1980;DoyalandGough1991;MaxNeef1991).Indeed,RousseauÕsearlycritiqueofindustrialso-cietyhadledhimtosupposethatindustrializa-tion,farfromdeliveringsocietalwell-being,wasintheprocessofcreatingawholesetofÒartiÞcialÓ(asopposedtoÒnaturalÓ)needs.Thispositionwasechoedinthenineteenthcenturybythecriti-calsocialtheorists.MarxattemptedtoidentifyadistinctionbetweenÒhumanÓandÒinhumanÓneeds,andMarcuseadistinctionbetweenÒtrueÓandÒfalseÓneeds(Springborg1981).Partlyasaresponsetothediscourseofneedsemployedbythecriticaltheorists,moderneco-nomicsiscuriouslyreticentonthesubjectofneeds,preferring,asnotedabove,tocashoutcon-sumerchoiceinthelanguageofwantsorprefer-ences.Someeconomistsgosofarastoarguethattheconceptofneedsislargelyirrelevanttoeco-nomics.Ineconomics,asAllen(1982,p.23)pointsout,needisaÒnon-word.ÓÒEconomicscansaymuchwhichisusefulaboutdesires,pref-erencesanddemands,Óheinsists.ÒButtheas-sertionofabsoluteeconomicÔneedÕÑincontrasttodesire,preferenceanddemandÑisnonsense.ÓEvenJohnKennethGalbraith,whoseeloquentchallengetotheÒafßuentsocietyÓprovidedthelaunchpadforaßoodofsimilarcritiques,coucheshisargumentsintermsofÒwantsÓratherthanneeds,indeferencetoeconomicconventions.ÒThenotionthatwantsdonotbecomelessur-gentthemoreamplytheindividualissuppliedisbroadlyrepugnanttocommonsense,Óhewrites(Galbraith1958,p.124).Nonetheless,asDurning(1992)remindsus,thephilosophicalandpsychologicalbasisonwhichconventionaleconomicsrestsÑalthoughdeeplyimbeddedinmoderninstitutionsÑisrela-tivelyrecentandrelativelynarrow.Inparticular,theassumptionofinsatiabilityattheheartofeco-nomics(Jacksonetal.2004)isdirectlycountertocertainclassicalconceptionsofhumanwell-being.Pleonexia,theinsatiabledesireformore,wasregardedinAristotleÕsdayasahumanfailing,anobstacletoachievingtheÒgoodlife.ÓInthemodernconsumersociety,itisencodedinboththeideologicalfoundationandtheinstitutionalstructureofthemarketeconomy.AsimilarargumentwasmadebyFromm(1976),whosuggestedthatmoderneconomictheoryÞndsitsphilosophicalbasisinradicalhedonism.Thoughpracticedthroughhistory,particularlybytherichestproportionofthepop-ulation,hedonismwasneveruntilrecentlyÒthetheoryofwell-beingasexpressedbythegreatMastersofLivingÓ(Fromm1976,p.3).Frommpointstoanessentialdistinction,presentinthewritingsofallthoseconcernedwithhumanwell-being,betweenÒ(desires)whichareonlysubjec-tivelyfeltandwhosesatisfactionleadstomo-mentarypleasureÓandÒobjectivelyvalidneedsÓwhichareÒrootedinhumannatureandwhosere-alizationisconducivetohumangrowthÓ(Fromm1976,p.4).Modernneeds-theoreticapproachestohu-manwell-beingtendtofollowthisdistinction.MaxNeef(1991),forexample,hasconstructedaneeds-basedtheoryofdevelopment,withinwhichwell-beingisrelatedtothesatisfactionofninefundamentalhumanneeds:subsistence,protection,affection,understanding,participa-tion,idleness,creation,identity,andfreedom.TheChileaneconomistgoesontoarguethat,althoughtheneedsthemselvesareuniversalinthehumanpsyche,eachcultureadoptsadiffer-entsetofsatisÞersinitsattemptstomeettheseneeds.Moreover,hepointsout,thesedifferentJournalofIndustrialEcology STATEOFTHEDEBATEsatisÞersmaybemoreorlesssuccessfulinmeet-ingtheunderlyingneeds.SomekindsofsatisÞersmayevenviolatetheunderlyingneedsthattheyareattemptingtomeet:asanexample,MaxNeefcitesthearmsraceasaviolatoroftheneedforPerhapsthemostinterestingquestionraisedbythisframeworkconcernstherelationshipbetweeneconomicgoodsÑconsumptionactivi-ties(intheconventionalmodel)Ñandneeds-satisfaction.Itisfairlyclearthatthisrelationshipishighlycomplexandoftennonlinear.Morecon-sumptionofanyparticulargooddoesnotalwaysmeanmoreneeds-satisfaction.Infact,iftheso-cialcritiquesofconsumptionaretobebelieved,itisclearthatsomeatleastofthespectrumofeco-nomicconsumptionfailstoachieveanyneeds-satisfactionatall,andmayevenbeviolatingcer-tainneeds(MaxNeef1991;JacksonandMarks1999;Kasser2002).Ofcourse,itisclearthatnotalleconomicconsumptionhasthischaracter.EvenwithintheMaxNeefframework,certainkindsofneeds(sub-sistenceandprotection,forexample)existthatdemandtheprovisionofcertainmaterialgoods(foodstuffsandhousing,forexample).ManagingtheenvironmentalimpactsassociatedwiththesatisfactionoftheseÒmaterialneedsÓremainsasigniÞcantchallenge.Atthesametime,itisclearthatmanyoftheotherneeds(affection,partici-pation,understanding,idleness,andidentity,forexample)areÒnonmaterialÓinthesensethatsat-isfactionoftheseneedsimpliesnominimumlevelofmaterialthroughput.Clearly,differentculturalsatisÞerswillhavedifferentmaterialimplications.Forexample,attemptsinWesternculturetosat-isfythesenonmaterialneedsincreasinglyinvolvematerialconsumption(JacksonandMarks1999).Iftheargumentscitedearlierinthissectionaretobebelieved,however,attemptstosatisfynonma-terialneedsthroughmaterialconsumptionwillmeetwithonlylimitedsuccess,ifanyatall.TwoconclusionsfollowfromthiscritiqueÑoneofthemisstark,theothermorehopeful.Thestarkconclusionisthatmodernsocietyap-pearstobeseriouslyadriftinitspursuitofhumanwell-being(Illich1977;Baumann1998;Kasser2002).Inpursuitofaninappropriateconceptofprogress,wearenotonlydamagingourenviron-mentbutalsodegradingourownpsychologicalandsocialwell-being.Thatenvironmentaldam-ageshouldturnouttobetheenvironmentalpricewehavetopayforachievinghumanwell-beingwouldbeunfortunate.Thatenvironmentaldam-ageisanexternalcostofamisguidedandunsuc-cessfulattempttoachievehumanwell-beingistragic.Consumersociety,inthisview,appearstobeinthegripofakindofsocialpathology.Thehopefulconclusionrestsinthescopeforimprovementthatthisperspectiveoffers.Envi-ronmentalimperativesÑthedemandtoreducethematerialimpactofhumanactivitiesÑareof-tenportrayedandoftenperceivedasconstrain-inghumanwelfareandthreateningourqualityoflife.Incontrast,theeco-humanisticcritiquesuggeststhatexistingpatternsofconsumptional-readythreatenourqualityoflife,notjustbecauseoftheirimpactontheenvironment,butalsobe-causeoftheirfailuretosatisfyourneeds.Reduc-ingthematerialproßigacyofourlives,accordingtothisview,willhelptheenvironment.Italsoof-fersthepossibilityofimprovingthequalityofourlives.ÒRevisioningthewaywesatisfyournonma-terialneedsisnotthebitterpillofeco-fascism,ÓargueJacksonandMarks(1999,p.439).ÒItisthemostobviousavenueforrenewinghumandevel-Thehumanisticneeds-basedcritiqueofmod-erndevelopmenthasinformedarangeofrecent,contemporarysocialmovementsaimedatÒvol-untarysimplicityÓ(Elgin1993),ÒdownshiftingÓ(Schor1998),andÒethicalÓconsumption(ShawandNewholm2003).Whatthesemovements(andtheneeds-theoreticcritiquethatunderliesthem)offeristhetantalizingpromisethatwecouldlivebetterbyconsumingless;thatreducedmaterialconsumptioncouldimprovethequalityofourlives,particularlywherethesatisfactionofnonmaterialneedsisconcerned.Sustainableconsumption,inthisperspective,appearstoof-feraveryparticularkindofdoubledividend:theabilitytolivebetterbyconsumingless,andbythesametoken,toreduceourimpactontheen-ConsumerBehaviorasanEvolutionaryAdaptationButthisconclusionraisesanimmediateandglaringquestion.Why,ifconsumptionsignally,LiveBetterbyConsumingLess? STATEOFTHEDEBATEfailstosatisfyoursocialandpsychologicalneeds,shouldwestillappeartobedriventocon-Oneofthepossibleresponsestothisques-tionistosuggestthathumanbeingspossesswhatMcDougall([1908]1923)calledanÒinstinctofacquisitionÓ;inotherwords,tosupposethatwearedriventoconsumebysomekindofbiologicalimperative.Thesimplisticideaofauniversalbio-logicaldrivetopossessmaterialgoodsisproblem-atic,asDittmar(1992)pointsout,fromanumberofperspectives.IntheÞrstplace,auniversalin-stinctformaterialacquisitionorpossessionpersecannotaccountforthehugedifferencesinÒma-terialityÓbothbetweenculturesandacrosstime.Moreover,agooddealofevidenceclearlyexists,forexample,ofselßessness,gift-giving,andshar-ing,whichwouldappeartoruncountertosuchaninstinct(BelkandCoon1993).Nonetheless,anaccumulatingbodyofresearchsuggeststhatmanyofthemostintractableaspectsofconsumerbe-haviorareindeedrootedininstinctive,evolvedbehaviorpatterns.Thefoundationforsuchaviewofhumanbe-haviorwaslaiddownbyDarwinhimself.IntheÞnalchapterofOntheOriginofSpecies,hesug-gestedthatÒinthedistantfutureÓthestudyofhumanpsychologywouldbebasedonanevolu-tionaryfooting(Darwin[1859]1985).Hehim-selfventuredsomewaytowardthisprojectinDescentofMan,wherehesetoutthenotionofsexualselection,namely,thatevolutionaryadap-tationswereselected,inpart,accordingtotheirsuccessinattractingmates.InTheExpressionoftheEmotionsinManandAnimalshepositedthatthedevelopmentofemotionswasitselfanexam-pleofanevolutionaryadaptation.Itisonlyasmallstepfromthesetwoinsightstosuggestthattheformandexpressionofhumanemotionalandbehavioralcharacteristicsarede-terminedinnosmallpartbytheirsuccessasevo-lutionaryadaptations.Inthehandsofawholenewgenerationofbiologistsandpsychologiststheseinsightshavebecomeanewandpower-fultheoryabouthumannature(Cronin1991;Miller2000;Ridley1994;Wright1994).ThecomplexramiÞcationsofevolutionarypsychol-ogyneednotconcernushere.Butageneralun-derstandingofitsimplicationsdoesturnouttobehighlyrelevanttothequestionofconsumerbehavior(Jackson2002b).Ridley(1994)setsouttheevolutionarypsy-chologystallpersuasively.Humannature,heargues,isfundamentallyinßuencedbythestrate-giesandploysofwhatDawkins(1976)calledtheÒselÞshgene.ÓBydeÞnition,thosegenesthathavesurvivedsofararethosethatcon-veytraitsandcharacteristicsthatareconducivetosurvivalÑortobemoreprecise:characteris-ticsthatwouldhavebeenconducivetogeneticsuccessionintheancestralenvironment(ToobyandCosmides1990).Inparticular,evolutionaryforceshaveconditioneduscontinuallytostrivetopositionourselvesinrelationtotheoppositesexandwithrespecttooursexualcompetitors.Moreover,thisfundamentalelementofsex-ualcompetitionneverabates,accordingtoevo-lutionarypsychology.Rather,weÞndourselvesconditionedtorunfasterandfasterastimegoesby,liketheRedQueeninLewisCarrollÕstheLookingGlass,preciselybecauseourcompeti-torsareallengagedinthesameunendingstrug-gle.Asa(male)reviewerofRidleyÕsbooknotedwithsomeglee:Òanimalsandplantsinventedsextofendoffparasiticinfection.Nowlookwhereithasgotus.MenwantBMWs,powerandmoneyinordertopair-bondwithwomenwhoareblonde,youthfulandnarrow-waistedÓ!Theideathatconsumptionmayhavesome-thingtodowithsexhasaclearresonancewithcommonwisdom.Advertisersandmediaexecu-tiveshavedevelopedanextraordinarycreativityinusingsexandsexualimagerytoselltheirprod-ucts.Plentyofevidenceisavailabletosuggestthatconsumersthemselvesrelateboththeactiv-ityofshoppingandtheproductstheyshopfortosexualmotivations,eitherimplicitlyorexplicitly(FalkandCampbell1997;Rosenblatt1999).InarecentarticleentitledTheFiresofDesire,theveteranconsumerresearcherRussellBelkandhiscoauthorsconductedacross-culturalsurveyinwhichtheytestedthehypothesisthatdesireplaysavitalroleinshapingandmotivatingcon-sumerbehavior(Belketal.2003).Inallthreeoftheculturesexamined,theauthorsfoundthatconsumermotivationswere(ofteninextricably)entwinedinthelanguageandimageryofsexualJournalofIndustrialEcology STATEOFTHEDEBATEAmongthebehaviorssuggestedbytheevo-lutionarypsychologyofconsumerismarethoseconcernedwithdisplayandstatus(Howarth1996).Wehavealreadydrawnattentiontosomeofthesebehaviors.VeblenhighlightedtheÒinvidiousÓnatureofsocialcomparisonandwasderogatoryoftheculturethatencouragesit.Pre-ferringtocondemnthantocondone,Veblenof-feredlittleinthewayofunderstandingoftheunderlyingmotivationsforconsumerbehavior.Evolutionarypsychology,ontheotherhand,clearlyhassomethingtoofferhere.SpeciÞcally,theargumentsfromsexualselectionsuggestthatatleastsomeÒconspicuousÓconsumerbehaviorsoccupytheroleofsexualdisplay.Thatis,theyadvertiseavailability,fertility,potency,Þdelity,andavarietyofothercharacteristicsdesirabletotheoppositesex.Displayconsumptionisnotlimitedtosexualdisplay,however.Otherkindsofdisplayspeaklessdirectlytosexualavailability,butrepresentameansofestablishingsocialpositionwithinsta-tushierarchies.Thenotionofastatushierarchyisanimportantoneinevolutionarypsychology.ItisderivedfromearlierworkbytheNorwegianbiologistSchjelderup-Ebbeonthenow-familiarconceptofaÒpeckingorder.ÓAccordingtoevo-lutionarypsychology,statushierarchiesplayarathercomplexbutextremelyimportantroleinthesocialorganizationthatcontrolsbothrightsandaccesstoresources.HighpositionsinthehierarchyÑaccordingtothetheoryÑcorrespondtoimprovedaccess,notonlytoÞnancialorphys-icalresources,butalsotosexualresources(po-tentialmates),tosocialresources(friends,fam-ily,community),andtoinformationÑvitalinitsturntoprotectthelong-termsocialinterestsoftheindividualandhisorherprogeny.Thislat-terviewisreinforced,asweshallseebelow,byresearchfromsocialanthropology.Themoregeneralnotionthatcertainkindsofconsumptionareusedtoadvertisestatus,power,andsocialpositionhasbeenexploredextensivelyinthesociologicaldiscourseonconsumption.FollowingVeblenÕswork,theFrenchsociologistPierreBourdieu(1984)hassuggestedthatpat-ternsofconsumerbehaviorprovidethemecha-nismfordeÞningandmaintainingclassdistinc-tionsinmodernsociety.AmoregeneralvariationonthisideaisprovidedbyFredHirschÕsconceptHirsch([1977]1995)suggestedthatonceourmaterialneedsaremet,weareledtoconsumeÒpositionalgoods,Ógoodsthathavethechar-acteristicofallowingustoÒpositionÓourselvessociallywithrespecttoourfellows.ThedeÞn-ingqualityofsuchgoodsistheirsocialscarcity;anditisthisscarcitythatprovidesthevehicleforsocialpositioning.Ifthegoodswerefreelyavailable,theirvalueinpositioningusinrela-tiontoourfellowswouldbediminished.Onceenoughpeoplepossessthesegoods,moreover,theirvalueinpositioningusaheadofthecrowddeclines,andthosewishingtostayaheadmustengageinasearchfornewgoodswithsocialInthisway,Hirschargues,thepositionaleconomyengagesusinanever-endingstruggleÑreminiscentoftheRedQueenargumentofevo-lutionarypsychology.ÒItisacaseofeveryoneinthecrowdstandingontiptoeandno-onegettingabetterview,Óhesuggests(Hirsch[1977]1995,p.49).Atthestartofsuchaprocess,afewindi-vidualsgainabetterviewbystandingontiptoe.Buttheupshotisthatothersareforcedtofol-lowjustsothattheycanmaintaintheirorig-inalposition.ButÒifalldofollowoneexpendsmoreresourcesandendsupwiththesameposition.ÓThevigorouspursuitofpo-sitionalconsumption,accordingtoHirsch,turnsouttobenothingmorethanakindofÒzero-sumGiventheapparentfutilityofthisRedQueenrace,itistemptingtolabelallsuchbehaviorsaseitherpathologicalormorallyreprehensible.Thisrebukehascertainlybeenimplicit(andsome-timesexplicit)inthewritingsofsocialtheoristssuchasVeblen,Hirsch,andBourdieu.Evolution-arypsychology,however,appearstohaveturnedthemoralconcernofsocialcommentatorsonitsheadbyofferinganevolutionaryÒlegitimationÓfordisplayconsumption.Fromthisperspective,status-seekingconsumerbehaviorcannotbere-gardedaseitherirrationalorpathologicalÑatleastfromanindividualpointofview.Rather,itisanexpressionofbehavioraltraitsthathavebeensuccessfulinensuringthesurvivalofthespeciesforgenerations.,LiveBetterbyConsumingLess? STATEOFTHEDEBATESomeverygoodargumentsexist,asweshallseebelow,fornottakingthisÒlegitimationÓtooseriously.Ontheother,thisshouldnotdiscour-ageusfromacknowledgingtheimportanceofstatus-seekingbehaviorstoanunderstandingofconsumermotivation.Norshoulditstopusfromusingthatunderstandingtoinformsustainableconsumptionpolicies.Someinterestingsugges-tionsalongtheselineshavealreadybeenmade.ArecentreporttotheU.K.PrimeMinisterÕsStrategyUnit,forexample,hassuggestedtheideaoftaxingpositionalgoods(Donovanetal.Itisalsoimportanttonotethatnotallofthebehaviorsthatemergefromevolutionarypsy-chologyareself-serving,sexuallyaggressivebe-haviors.Thetheoryalsooffersanaccountofmoral,social,andaltruisticbehaviors.Keytheo-riesinevolutionarypsychologysuggestthatsuchbehaviorsevolvedinhumanspreciselybecausetheyofferselectiveadvantages(Wright1994).Animportantbodyofworkalsoshowshowtheindividualchoicebetweencompetitivebe-haviorandcooperativebehaviordependscru-ciallyonthesocialandinstitutionalcontext.Axelrod(1984)showedhowaconditionalformofaltruismcouldßourishevenincompetitiveso-cieties.Inverycompetitivesocieties,self-servingbehaviortendstobemoresuccessfulthanaltru-ism.Butinasocietycharacterizedbycooperation,sociallyresponsivebehaviortendstobefavoredovercompetition.Someclearpolicylessonsemergefromallthis.First,ofcourse,evolutionarypsychologypointstothelimitationsofappealingtotheÒbetterna-tureÓofconsumers.Exhortationstoindividualrestraintarelikelytobemeetwithlimitedsuc-cess,particularlywheresocialconditionsmilitateagainstaltruisticbehavior.Conversely,thisper-spectivehighlightsthecrucialimportanceofthesocialandculturalcontextinshapingandcon-strainingindividualchoice.Thedominantviewofhumannatureemergingfromevolutionarypsy-chologymaybeoneinwhich,inDawkinsÕswords,ÒsustainabilitydoesnÕtcomenaturallyÓ(Dawkins2001).Butitalsohighlightstheimportanceofpolicyinterventiontonurture,support,andsus-tainmoralandsocialbehaviors.Itcannotentirelybetakenasrulingoutthepossibilityoflivingbetterbyconsumingless,butitdoessuggestthatachievingthisdoubledividendwillrequireso-phisticatedunderstandingsofandinterventionsinhumanbehavior.OrdinaryConsumptionandConsumerLock-inVeblenesquedisplayconsumptionhasoccu-piedacentralroleinmanyofthesociologicaldebatesonconsumptionoverthelastcentury.Recently,however,theemphasisonthisaspectofconsumerbehaviorhasitselfbeencriticized.Ahandfulofwritershavearguedthatagreatdealofconsumptioninfacttakesplaceapartoftheordinary,everydaydecision-makingofmillionsofindividualconsumers.ÒOrdinaryÓconsumption,arguetheseauthors,isnotorientedparticularlytowardindividualdisplay.Ratheritisaboutconvenience,habit,practice,andindi-vidualresponsestosocialnormsandinstitutionalcontexts(GronowandWarde2001;Shove2003;ShoveandWarde1997).TheconceptofÒinconspicuousconsumptionÓisimportanttoanunderstandingofconsumerbe-haviorforseveralreasons.Inparticular,ithasaclearresonancewithourday-to-dayexperienceofconsuming.High-streetshoppingforfashiongoodsmayexplicitlyengageourdisplaymotiva-tionsonselectedoccasions.Apartfromcompul-siveoraddictiveshoppers,however,wedonotasarulespendourday-to-daylivesengagedcon-sciouslyinthiskindofconsumption.Muchev-erydayconsumptionisalmostinvisible,eventoInparticular,theregularpaymentsthatleaveourbankaccountstocoverourmortgages,in-surancepayments,utilitybills,andlocaltaxesappeartohaveverylittleinthewayofdisplayorstatusassociatedwiththematall.Evenwhentheychangeelectricityorgassuppliers,forexam-ple,veryfewpeopletendtobemotivatedintheirchoiceofnewsupplierbyanyattempttoimprovetheirsocialstanding.Indeed,therewouldbelit-tlepointinengaginginsuchastrategy.Aswellasbeinginconspicuoustoourselves,suchchoicesarevirtuallyinvisibletooursocialpeers,oursex-ualcompetitors,andtheworldatlarge.AcloserexaminationrevealsthatsomeatleastofourÒordinaryÓconsumptionconcealsim-portantdisplayandstatusaspects.Inparticular,JournalofIndustrialEcology STATEOFTHEDEBATEofcourse,manyeverydayhouseholdconsump-tiondecisionsareshapedbyasingleandverysigniÞcantconsumptiondecisionwithcleardis-playandstatusconnotations:namely,ourchoiceofdwelling.Alargerhouseinabetterneighbor-hoodmayoffersocialandpersonaladvantagestoitsownerortenant.Italsoentailslargermortgage(orrent)payments,higherutilitybills,higherlo-calauthority(council)taxes,heavierinsurancepremiums,andagreaterdemandforfurnitureandÞttings.HavingmadetheÒcriticalÓconsumptionchoiceofhousepurchase(orrental),wemaythenÞndourselveslockedintoavarietyofothercon-sumptiondecisionsthathavelittleornothingtododirectlywithstatus.Nonetheless,thestatuscomponentinsuchdecisionsisdifÞculttodeny.Itisclear,however,thatcriticalconsumptiondecisionsÑsuchashouseorvehiclepurchaseÑareonlyoneofmanycomponentsthatinßuenceeverydayconsumerchoice.Akeylessonfromtheliteratureonordinaryconsumptionisthattheseday-to-daychoicesareconstrainedwithinarathercomplexdecisionarchitecture,whichin-cludeshistorical,social,institutional,andevenpoliticalcomponents.Totakeonesimpleandratherfamiliarexam-ple,thefuelconsumptionassociatedwithheatingourhomesisdetermined(amongotherthings)bytheavailablefuelsupply,theefÞciencyoftheconversiondevices,theeffectivenessofthermalinsulationinthedwelling,andthelevelofther-malcomfortprogrammedintoourthermostats.Thesefactorsintheirturnareconstrainedbythehistoricaldevelopmentofthefuelsupplyandapplianceindustries,theinstitutionaldesignoftheenergyservicemarket,thesocialnormsas-sociatedwithpersonalconvenienceandthermalcomfort,andourownpersonalresponsestothosenorms.Theprocessofsocializationofthesenormsisitselfacomplexone,ofteninvolvingincremen-talchangesoverlonghistoricalperiods(Shove2003).Typically,atthepointofeverydaydeci-sion,theordinaryconsumerwillhavelittleornocontrolovermostofthisdecisionarchitecture.Themessagethatßowsfromthisanalysis,therefore,isthatconsumersarealongwayfrombeingwillingactorsintheconsumptionprocess,capableofexercisingeitherrationalorirrationalchoiceinthesatisfactionoftheirownneedsanddesires.MoreoftentheyÞndthemselvesÒlockedintoÓunsustainablepatternsofconsumption,ei-therbysocialnormsthatliebeyondindividualcontrol,orelsebytheconstraintsoftheinstitu-tionalcontextwithinwhichindividualchoiceisEmphasizingthatthesecircumstancesareÒof-tendeliberatelycreatedbyproducerandbusi-nessinterestsÓ(Sanne2002,p.286),proponentsofthisviewhavesomethingincommonwiththecriticalsocialtheoryofBourdieuandothers.Theyalsooffersomesupportfortheideathatconsumersocietyissufferingfromsomekindofsocialpathology.Butthelaterwriterslocatethepathologyinadifferentplacethandotheearliersocialcritics.SpeciÞcally,theyclaim,thispathol-ogydoesnotresidewithintheremitorcontroloftheindividualconsumer.Norisitsomedisem-bodiedfeatureofÒconsumerculture.ÓRatheritistobelocatedquitespeciÞcallywithintheinstitu-tionalarchitectureofeverydaychoice(Wilhiteetal.1996;Geretal.1998).Onceagain,themes-sageofthisstrandoftheliteratureistoemphasizethatwishfulthinkingaboutbehavioralchangewillnotdeliversustainability.Iftherearewin-winsolutionstotheproblemofoverconsump-tion,theywillrequireinterventionandchangeatthesocietallevel,ratherthansimplisticappealstothegoodnatureofindividualstorealizethem.TheSymbolicRoleofConsumerGoodsProponentsofÒordinaryconsumptionÓdown-playtheimportanceofVeblenesqueexplanationsaboutconsumerbehavior.Butoneunderlyingfeatureofdisplayconsumptionisscarcelydeni-ableandhasmuchwiderconnotationsthanitsapplicationtostatus-seekingbehaviors.Thisistheinsightthat,inadditiontotheirpurelyfunc-tionalcharacteristics,materialcommoditiespos-sessvitallyimportantsymbolicproperties.Onceagainthisideahassomeresonancewithpopularpsychologyaboutourrelationshipwithmaterialobjects.AchildÕsÞrstteddybear,awomanÕsweddingdress,theclubshirtofthefoot-ballfan,thetornandfrayedphotographofanoldfriend,thestampcollectorÕsprizedÞrst-daycover,theverylatestchartCD,thisyearÕsexecutivetoy,thesouped-up,low-sprungsportscaroftheÒboyracerÓ:alltheseexamplessuggestthatmuchmore,LiveBetterbyConsumingLess? STATEOFTHEDEBATEisatstakeinthepossessionofmaterialartifactsthansimplefunctionalvalue.Overthesecondhalfofthetwentiethcen-tury,abodyofintellectualthoughthasemergedthatsetsthispopularwisdomaboutthesymbolicnatureofconsumergoodsonamuchmorerobustandsophisticatedfooting.Thisschoolofthoughthasarisenfromtheconßuenceofsomeratherdi-verseintellectualinßuences,includingthesocialcritiquesofSimmel(1950)andBourdieu(1984),thesemioticsofCharlesMorris(1946),thestruc-turalistphilosophyofRolandBarthes(1973),thepoststructuralistsocialphilosophyofBaudrillard(1968,1970),thesocialanthropologyofMarshallSahlins(1976)andMaryDouglas(1976),andtheconsumerandmotivationresearchofErnestDichter(1964),ElizabethHirschmannandMor-risHolbrook(Hirschmann,1980),RussellBelk(1988),andothers.Againitwouldbeimpossibletodojusticetothisenormousliteraturewithinthescopeofoneshortarticle.Nonetheless,themostimportantlessonfromthishugebodyofworkisratherclear:materialcommoditiesareimportanttous,notjustforwhattheydo,butforwhattheysignify(aboutusandaboutourlives,loves,desires,successes,andfailings)bothtoothersandtoourselves.Ma-terialcommoditiesarenotjustartifacts.NordotheyofferpurelyfunctionalbeneÞts.Theyde-rivetheirimportance,inpartatleast,fromtheirsymbolicroleinmediatingandcommunicatingpersonal,social,andculturalmeaning.DouglasandIsherwood([1979]1996,p.40)makethecasepersuasively:Forgettheideaofconsumerirrationality.For-getthatcommoditiesaregoodforeating,clothingandshelter;forgettheirusefulnessandtryinsteadtheideathatcommoditiesaregoodforthinking;treatthemasanonverbalmediumforthehumancreativefaculty.Oneofthemostobviousapplicationsofthisbroadthesisliesintheroleofmaterialcommodi-tiesinconstructingandmaintainingpersonalidentity.Theideathatwetendtoregardpos-sessionsaspartsofourselvesdatesback(atleast)tothephilosopherWilliamJames,whoarguedAmanÕsSelfisthesumtotalofallthathecancallhis,notonlyhisbodyandhispsychicpowers,buthisclothesandhishouse,hiswifeandhischildren,hisancestorsandfriends,hisreputationandworks,hislands,andyacht,andbank-account.Allthesethingsgivehimthesameemotions.Iftheywaxandprosper,hefeelstriumphant;iftheydwindleanddieaway,hefeelscastdownÑnotnecessarilyinthesamedegreeforeachthing,butinmuchthesameway.(James1890,pp.291Ð292)TheimplicationsofJamesÕsobservationforconsumerbehaviorhavebeenexploredinconsid-erabledepthinconsumerresearchandofcourseemployedwidelyinadvertisingandmarketingconsumergoods(FineandLeopold1993).Inacomprehensivesurveyoftherelationshipbe-tweenpossessionsandtheÒextendedselfÓRussellBelk(1988)exploresthefunctionsofpossessionsatdifferentstagesofhumandevelopment,fromtheirroleinenablingtheinfanttodistinguishbetweenselfandenvironmenttotheirfunctioninachievingasenseofcontinuityandprepara-tionfordeathinolderadults.Healsoundertakesacomprehensivesurveyofthevariouspsycho-logicalandsocialprocesseswherebyconsumerpossessionsareÒcathectedÓorincorporatedintotheextendedself.Perhapsthemostobviousexampleoftheroleofmaterialartifactsintheconstructionofiden-tityisprovidedbythecaseofthecarnotedabove,asthefollowingwonderfulanecdotefromtheNewYorkcolumnistBenjaminSteinmakesabundantlyclear:SometimesItestmyself.Wehaveanancient,batteredPeugeot,andIdriveitforaweek.Itrarelybreaks,anditgetsgreatmileage.ButwhenIpullupnexttoabeautifulwoman,Iamstillthegeekwiththeglasses.ThenIgetbackintothePorsche.Itroarsandittugstogetmoving.Itacceleratesevengo-inguphillat80ItmakesmefeellikeatomcatontheprowlwiththegirlsIshallneverseeagainpullingupnexttome,giv-ingthecaraonce-over,andlookingatmeasifIwereacoolguy,notaworried,over-extended,40-year-oldschnookwriter.(Stein1985,p.30)ButthesymbolicimportanceofpossessionsisnotconÞnedsolelytopersonalidentity.Symbolsarebytheirnaturesociallyconstructed.ThevalueattachedtosymbolsisconstantlyJournalofIndustrialEcology STATEOFTHEDEBATEnegotiatedandrenegotiatedthroughsocialin-teractionswithinaspeciÞcculturalcontext.Forasymboltoserveitspurposeofconveyingsocialmeaning,asHirschman(1980)explains,ÒtheremustbeatleasttwopartiesÑthesymbolpossessor(perhapsaconsumerdesiringtoexpresshis/heridentitytoothersviaadisplayofsymbols)andthesymbolobserver(perhapsanotherindividualtowhomtheconsumerwishestocommunicatehis/heridentity).ÓInthehandsofBaudrillard(1970)andmorerecentlyBaumann(1998),thisinsighthasbe-comethebasisforaviewofconsumersocietyinwhichtheindividualconsumerislockedintoacontinualprocessofconstructingandrecon-structingpersonalidentityinthecontextofacontinuallyrenegotiateduniverseofsocialandculturalsymbols.Theprincipalobjectofcon-sumptionintheconsumersocietyisnot,ac-cordingtoBaudrillard,materialgoodsoreveneconomicvalue,butsigns,symbolicvalue.AsBaumann(1998)argues,thereareconvenientresonancesbetweenthisprocessofperpetualre-constructionofidentityandtheimpermanenttransientpropertiesofmodernconsumergoods.ÒAggregateidentities,Óheargues,Òlooselyar-rangedofthepurchasable,not-too-lasting,easilydetachableandutterlyreplaceabletokenscur-rentlyavailableintheshops,seemtobeexactlywhatoneneedstomeetthechallengesofcon-temporarylivingÓ(Baumann1998,p.29).AverysimilarthesisisadvancedinLewisandBridgerÕs(2001)bookTheSouloftheNewConsumerInasensethismodeloftheperpetualrecon-structionofidentitythroughmaterialgoodsap-pearstoreinforcetheideaexploredinanearliersectionthatconsumersocietyisinthegripofsomekindofsocialpathology.Butassomeoftheproponentsofthiskindofsymbolicinteraction-ismarekeentopointout,thisisnotapathologylocatedwithintheindividualconsumer.DouglasandIsherwood([1979]1996)setoutaviewofconsumersocietythatisbasedÞrmlyonanthro-pologicalstudiesofprimitivesocieties.Inthisview,itisentirelyÒrationalÓforconsumerstoemploymaterialartifactsinawiderangeofsocialcontextstoprovidesymbolicfunctions.Inpar-ticular,theydrawattentiontotheimportanceofmaterialgoodsinprovidingÒmarkingservicesÓÑsocialritualsthatservetoembedtheconsumerinhisorhersocialgroup,cementsocialrelationswithinthegroup,andplayavitalroleinmain-taininginformationßowswithinthesocialgroup.Theseinformationßows,claimDouglasandIsh-erwood,gofarbeyondtheinvidiousÒdisplaycon-sumptionÓofferedbyVeblenesquecritiquesofconsumerism.Theyserveavitalpurposeinhelp-ingtheindividualtomaintainandimprovesocialresilienceinthefaceofculturalshiftsandsocialshocks.Researchfromanentirelydifferentquar-terappearstoreinforcetheseideas.Theimpor-tanceofgiftgivinginexchangerelationshasbeenwidelyexploredinconsumerpsychologyandmo-tivationresearch(BelkandCoon1993).PerhapsevenmoresurprisinginsightsemergefromtheliteraturethatconnectsthesymbolicroleofconsumergoodstowhatMaslow(1954)calledtheÒhigherÓactualizationneedsforun-derstanding,meaning,andtranscendencethathumanbeingsexperience.Fascinatingresearchonthesacredmeaningofmoney(BelkandWallendorf1990)andthesacredandprofaneaspectsofconsumption(Belketal.1989)iden-tiÞesaÒritualsubstratumÓofconsumerbehaviorinwhichconsumersarecontinuallyengagedinaprocessofsacralizinganddesacralizingmaterialgoods.McCracken(1990)arguesthatconsumersareengagedinacontinualpursuitofÒdisplacedidealsÓbyinvestingsymbolicmeaningsincon-sumptiongoods.Campbell(1987,2004)suggeststhatconsumptionplaysavitalroleinallowingpeopletoÒdreamÓandtoexplorefundamentalmetaphysicalquestionsaboutwhotheyareandwhattheworldislike.Theseinsightsareclearlyvitalwhereourun-derstandingofconsumptionisconcerned.Itisalreadyclearthatnopurelyfunctionalaccountofmaterialgoodsisgoingtodeliverarobustmodelforunderstandingconsumerbehavior,be-causefunctionalityisnotthepoint(oratleastnotexclusivelythepoint).Weconsumenotjusttonourishourselvesorprotectourselvesfromtheelementsormaintainaliving.Weconsumeinordertoidentifyourselveswithasocialgroup,topositionourselveswithinthatgroup,todis-tinguishourselveswithrespecttoothersocialgroups,tocommunicateallegiancetocertainide-als,andtodifferentiateourselvesfromcertainotherideals.Weconsumeinordertocommu-nicate.Throughconsumptionwecommunicate,LiveBetterbyConsumingLess? STATEOFTHEDEBATEnotonlywitheachotherbutalsowithourpasts,withourideals,withourfears,andwithouraspi-rations.Weconsumeinpursuitofmeaning.Clearly,thisviewofconsumptionasavitalformofsocialcommunicationsuggeststhatsimplisticappealstoconsumerstoforegoconsumptionopportunitiesjustwillnotwash.Indeedproponentsofthisviewdismisstheeco-humanisticideaofÒlivingbetterbyconsuminglessÓasÒnaõve,absurdandmoralisticÓ(Jacksonetal.2004).Inshort,thesymbolicinteractionistperspectiveonconsumptionappearsonceagaintosupporttheargumentthatconsumptiongoodsÑevenatveryhighlevelsofthroughputÑareessentialelementsinthepursuitofhumanwell-being.Ittakesus,inonesense,rightbacktotheplacefromwhichwestarted.Itshouldbeobviousfromtheprecedingdis-cussionthatthevariousdiscoursesonconsump-tionareshotthroughwithakindofdialecticaltension.Theeco-humanistviewofconsumptionasasocialpathologyarisesasadialecticalre-sponsetotheconventionaleconomicinsatiabil-ityofwants.Inplaceofinsatiability,theeco-humanistsplacesufÞciencyinthesatisfactionofneeds,andtheyemphasizethesocialandpsycho-logicaldangersofmaterialism.Theconsumption-as-evolutionavenuewarnsagainstanysimplisticadoptionofthisperspectivebyemphasizingtheevolvednatureofconsumerbehaviors,whereastheconsumption-as-meaningschoolattackstheeco-humanistapproachforfailingtoaccountforthesymbolicnatureofmaterialgoods.Itempha-sizesthevitalsocialandculturalrolesthatcon-sumerartifactsarecalledupontoplay.Apartofthisdialecticaltensionclearlyre-volvesaroundtheconceptofhumanneedsandtherolethatthesemightplayindevelopingalter-nativeviewsofhumandevelopment.Economicsplaysdownneeds;humanisticpsychologyplacesthematthecenterofitsideasabouthumanmo-tivationandbehavior;anditisinterestingtonotethatsymbolicinteractionismisasscathingaboutneedsaseconomicsis(Jacksonetal.2004).Baudrillard(1968,p.24)forexample,insiststhatÒthedesiretomoderateconsumptionortoestab-lishanormalizingnetworkofneeds,isnaõveandabsurdmoralism.ÓDouglasandIsherwood([1979]1996)areequallydismissiveofthisagenda.Butwheredotheseargumentsleavethedou-bledividendargument?Howshouldwenowcon-struetheideathatitispossibletolivebetterbyconsumingless?Shouldthissimplybeabandonedasanunrealisticreadingofamuchmorecomplexsituation?Oristherestillroomformaneuverinnegotiatingalessmaterialisticsocietythatisalsocapableofdeliveringimprovedwell-being?Thesociologicalrejectionoftheneeds-theoreticalframeworkis,atÞrstsight,particularlydamagingfortheeco-humanistsÕdoubledividendargument.Forifmaterialartifactsplayvitallyim-portantrolesinrelationtosocialinteractions,forexamplethroughmarkingservices,andthesemarkingservicesplaysuchvitalrolesinmain-taininginformationnetworksandprotectingourresiliencetosocialshocks,thenitbecomesex-tremelyproblematicforanysetofpeopletosug-gesttoanothersetofpeopleÑortosocietyatlargeÑthattheirneedsmightbeservedbyfore-goingthebeneÞtsofmaterialartifacts.Indeeditwouldappeartobeaclearrecipeforexploitationofonesocialgroupbyanother.Unfortunately,however,wearedrivenatthesametimeawayfromthepossibilitythatwemightseekdemate-rializationofthesesocialandculturalneeds.Ontheotherhand,itseemstomethatthesymbolicinteractionistapproachdoesoffersomeparticularlypromisinginsightsforsustain-ableconsumption.Attheveryleast,thesocialanthropologyandphilosophyofconsumerbe-haviordoesnotprecludethepossibilityofne-gotiatingorrenegotiatingtheconditionsandthemeansunderwhichÒmarkingservices,Óforex-ample,areexchanged.Moreover,theinsightthatacertainamountofconsumerbehaviorisdedi-catedtoan(ultimatelyßawed)pursuitofmeaningopensupthetantalizingpossibilityofdevisingsomeother,moresuccessfulandlessecologicaldamagingstrategyforpursingpersonalandcul-turalmeaning.Thisisnot,inanysense,asimpletask,noronethatcaneasilybepursuedbyanygivenindivid-ualorsetofindividuals.Onthecontrary,itisafundamentallysocialandculturalproject,whichwillrequiresophisticatedpolicyinterventionsatmanydifferentlevels(JacksonandMichaelis2003;Jackson2005).Nonetheless,itremainsaJournalofIndustrialEcology STATEOFTHEDEBATEveryrealpossibilitythatwecouldcollectivelyde-viseasocietyinwhichitispossibletolivebetter(oratleastaswellaswehavedone)byconsumingless,andbecomemorehumanintheprocess.IamgratefulforÞnancialsupportfromtheU.K.EconomicandSocialResearchCouncilÕsSustainableTechnologiesProgramme(RES-332-27-001)duringthecourseofthiswork,andforvaluableinsightsonsomeoftheideasinthisarti-clefromnumerousfriendsandcolleaguesinclud-ingBlakeAlcott,RussellBelk,ColinCampbell,NicDonovan,PaulEkins,BirgittaGatersleben,DavidHalpern,TomHargreaves,NicMarks,LaurieMichaelis,WendyOlsen,SallyRandle,DaleSoutherton,RuthThomas-Pellicer,DavidUzzell,PrashantVaze,andAlanWarde.Anear-lierversionofthisarticlewaspresentedattheThirdEnvironmentalPsychologyU.K.confer-enceinAberdeeninJuly2003.ReferencesAllen,W.1982.MidnightEconomist:Broadcastessays.LosAngeles:InternationalInstituteforEco-nomicResearch.Anderton,A.2000.Thirdedition.Orm-skirk,UK:CausewayPress.Anurit,J.,K.Newman,andB.Chansarker1999.sumerbehaviourofluxuryautomobiles:Acom-parativestudybetweenThaiandUKcustomersDiscussionpaper,MiddlesexUniversityBusinessSchool,London.Axelrod,R.1984.Theevolutionofcooperation.NewYork:BasicBooks.Bagozzi,R.,Z.Gurnao-Canli,andJ.Priester2002.socialpsychologyofconsumerbehaviour.Maiden-head,UK:OpenUniversityPress.Barthes,R.1973..London:Paladin.Baudrillard,J.1968.Thesystemofobjects,extractedSelectedwritings[1988].Cambridge,UK:PolityBaudrillard,J.1970.TheconsumersocietyÑMythsandReprinted1998.London:SagePubli-Baumann,Z.1998.Work,consumerismandthenewpoor.Maidenhead,UK:OpenUniversityPress.Becker,G.1976.Theeconomicapproachtohumanbe-.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.Becker,G.1981.Atreatiseonthefamily.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.Begg,D.,S.Fischer,andR.Dornbusch2003.Seventhedition.Maidenhead,UK:Belk,R.1988.Possessionsandtheextendedself.ofConsumerResearch15(2):139Ð168.Belk,R.andG.Coon.1993.Gift-givingasagapiclove:Analternativetotheexchangeparadigmbasedondatingexperiences.JournalofConsumerRe-20(3):393Ð417.Belk,R.andM.Wallendorf.1990.Thesacredmeaningofmoney.JournalofEconomicPsychologyBelk,R.,M.Wallendorf,andJ.Sherry.1989.Thesa-credandtheprofaneinconsumerbehaviourÑTheodicyontheJournalofConsumer16(1):1Ð38.Belk,R.,G.Ger,andS.Askegaard.2003.TheÞreofdesire:Amulti-sitedinquiryintoconsumerpas-JournalofConsumerResearch30(3):326ÐBergmann,A.,N.Hanley,andR.Wright.2004.Valu-ingattributesofrenewableenergyinvestments.PaperpresentedatAppliedEnvironmentalEco-nomicsConference,26March,London.Bocock,R.1993..London:Routledge.Bourdieu,P.1984.DistinctionÑAsocialcritiqueofthejudgementoftaste.London:RoutledgeandKeganCampbell,C.1987.Theromanticethicandthespiritofmodernconsumerism.Oxford,UK:Blackwell.Campbell,C.2004.IshopthereforeIknowthatIam:Themetaphysicalbasisofmodernconsumerism.Elusiveconsumption,editedbyK.EkstromandH.Brembeck.NewYork:BergPublishers.Cohen,M.andJ.Murphy.2001.ExploringsustainableconsumptionÑEnvironmentalpolicyandthesocial.Oxford,UK:PergamonPress.Crawford,I.2003.VariationsinthepriceoffoodsandnutrientsintheUK.WorkingpaperWP03/19.London:InstituteforFiscalStudies.Cronin,H.1991.TheantandthepeacockÑSexualselec-tionfromDarwintotoday.Cambridge,UK:Cam-bridgeUniversityPress.Daly,H.1996.BeyondgrowthÑTheeconomicsofsus-tainabledevelopment.Boston:BeaconPress.Darwin,C.1985.Ontheoriginofspeciesbymeansofnaturalselection.1859.Reprinted1985.London:PenguinClassics.Dawkins,R.1976.TheselÞshgene.Oxford,UK:OxfordUniversityPress.Dawkins,R.2001.SustainabilitydoesnÕtcomenat-urally:Anevolutionaryperspectiveonvalues.,LiveBetterbyConsumingLess? STATEOFTHEDEBATEÒValuesPlatformforSustainabilityÓInauguralLecturepresentedatTheEnvironmentFounda-tion,Wednesday,14November2001,TheRoyalInstitution,London.DEFRA(DepartmentofEnvironment,FoodandRuralAffairs).2003.ChangingPatterns:UKgovern-mentframeworkforsustainableconsumptionandproduction.London:DEFRA/DTI.Dichter,E.1964.Thehandbookofconsumermotiva-tions:Thepsychologyofconsumption.NewYork:Dittmar,H.E.1992.Thesocialpsychologyofmate-rialpossessionsÑTohaveistobe.NewYork:St.MartinÕsPress.Donovan,N.,D.Halpern,andR.Sargeant.2002.Lifesatisfaction:Thestateofknowledgeandimpli-cationsforgovernment.London:CabinetOfÞceStrategyUnit.Douglas,M.1976.Relativepoverty,relativecommu-nication.InTraditionsofsocialpolicy,editedbyA.Halsey.Oxford,UK:BasilBlackwell.Douglas,M.andB.Isherwood.1996.TheworldofgoodÑTowardsananthropologyofconsumption1979Reprintedition.London:Routledge.Douthwaite,R.1992.ThegrowthillusionÑHoweco-nomicgrowthhasenrichedthefew,impoverishedthemanyandendangeredtheplanet.Bideford,UK:GreenBooks.Doyal,L.andI.Gough.1991.AtheoryofhumanneedsLondon:Macmillan.Durning,A.1992.Howmuchisenough?NewYork:W.W.Norton.Edwards,T.2000.Contradictionsofconsumption:Con-cepts,practicesandpoliticsinconsumersocietyMiltonKeynes,UK:OpenUniversityPress.Elgin,D.1993.Voluntarysimplicity.NewYork:WilliamFalk,P.andC.Campbell.1997.TheshoppingexperienceLondon:Sage.Fine,B.andE.Leopold.1993.Theworldofconsumption.London:RoutledgeandKeganPaul.Fromm,E.1976.Tohaveortobe?London:JonathanGabriel,Y.andT.Lang.1995.Theunmanageablecon-sumer:Contemporaryconsumptionanditsfragmen-London:Sage.Galbraith,J.1958.Theafßuentsociety.Har-mondsworth,UK:Penguin.Galtung,J.1990.Internationaldevelopmentinhumanperspective.InConßict:Humanneedsthe-,editedbyJ.Burton.NewYork:St.MartinÕsGer,G.,H.Wilhite,B.Halkier,J.Lassoe,M.Godskesen,andI.R¿pke.1998.Symbolicmean-ingsofhighandlow-impactdailyconsump-tionpracticesindifferentcultures.PresentedatSecondESFWorkshoponConsumptionandEverydayLife,July,LancasterUniversity,Geyer,R.andT.Jackson.2004.SupplyloopsandtheirCaliforniaManagementReviewGraedel,T.andB.Allenby.1995.IndustrialecologyEnglewoodCliffs,NJ:PrenticeHall.Gronow,J.andA.Warde.2001.OrdinaryconsumptionLondon:Routledge.Guide,D.andL.vanWassenhove.2004.Specialissueonsupplychainmanagement.CaliforniaManage-mentReview46(2):1Ð141.Heap,B.andJ.Kent.2000.TowardssustainableconsumptionÑAEuropeanperspective.London:TheRoyalSociety.Herber,L.1963.Oursyntheticenvironment.London:JonathanCape.Hirsch,F.1995.Sociallimitstogrowth.1977.Revisededition.London:Routledge.Hirschman,E.1980.ComprehendingsymbolicconsumptionÑThreetheoreticalissues.Inbolicconsumerbehaviour,proceedingsoftheconfer-enceonconsumerestheticsandsymbolicconsump-,editedbyE.HirschmanandM.Holbrook.NewYork:AssociationforConsumerResearch.Homans,G.1961.Socialbehaviour:ItselementaryformsLondon:RoutledgeandKeganPaul.Howarth,R.1996.StatuseffectsandenvironmentalEcologicalEconomics16(1):25Ð34.Illich,I.1977.Towardsahistoryofneeds.NewYork:PantheonBooks.Jackson,T.1996.Materialconcerns:Pollution,proÞtandqualityoflife.London:Routledge.Jackson,T.2002a.Qualityoflife,sustainabilityandeconomicgrowth.InEnvironmentandWelfare,editedbyT.FitzpatrickandM.Cahill.PalgraveMacmillan.Jackson,T.2002b.Evolutionarypsychologyineco-logicaleconomics:Consilience,consumptionandEcologicalEconomics41(2):289ÐJackson,T.2005.MotivatingsustainableconsumptionÑAreviewofmodelsofconsumerbehaviourandbehaviouralchange.AReporttotheSustainableDevelopmentResearchNetwork.London:PolicyStudiesInstitute.Jackson,T.andR.Clift.1998.WhereÕstheproÞtinin-dustrialecology?JournalofIndustrialEcologyJackson,T.andN.Marks.1999.Consumption,sustain-ablewelfareandhumanneedsÑWithreferencetoUKexpenditurepatterns1954Ñ1994.icalEconomics28(3):421Ð442.JournalofIndustrialEcology STATEOFTHEDEBATEJackson,T.andL.Michaelis.2003.Policiesforsustain-ableconsumption.London:SustainableDevelop-mentCommission.Jackson,T.,W.Jager,andS.Stagl.2004.BeyondinsatiabilityÑNeedstheoryandsustainablecon-sumption.InConsumptionÑPerspectivesfromeco-logicaleconomics,editedbyL.ReischandI.R¿pke.Cheltenham,UK:EdwardElgar.Jacobs,M.andI.R¿pke.1999.Specialissueoncon-EcologicalEconomicsJames,W.1890.Theprinciplesofpsychology.NewYork:HenryHolt.Kasser,T.2002.Thehighpriceofmaterialism.Cam-bridge,MA:MITPress.Lancaster,K.1966.Anewapproachtocon-sumertheory.JournalofPoliticalEconomyLederer,K.1980.HumanneedsÑAcontributiontothecurrentdebate.Cambridge,MA:Oelgeschlager,GunnandHain.Lewis,D.andD.Bridger.2001.Thesoulofthenewconsumer:AuthenticityÑWhatwebuyandwhywebuyit.London:NicholasBrealey.Mas-Colell,A.,M.Whinston,andJ.Green.1995.croeconomictheory.Oxford,UK:OxfordUniver-sityPress.Maslow,A.1954.Motivationandpersonality.NewYork:Harper&Row.MaxNeef,M.1991.Human-scaledevelopmentÑConception,applicationandfurtherreßection.Lon-don:ApexPress.McCracken,G.1990.Cultureandconsumption.Bloom-ington,IN:IndianaUniversityPress.McDougall,W.1923.Anintroductiontosocialpsy-,1908.Eighteenthedition.London:Michaelis,L.2000.SustainableconsumptionÑAre-searchagenda.Oxford,UK:CommissiononSus-tainableConsumption.Miller,D.1995.Acknowledgingconsumption.London:Miller,G.2000.ThematingmindÑHowsexualchoiceshapedtheevolutionofhumannature.London:WilliamHeinemann.Morris,C.1946.Signs,languageandbehaviour.York:GeorgeBraziller.Myers,D.andE.Diener.1996.Thepursuitofhappi-ScientiÞcAmerican27(5):70Ð73.Norgaard,R.1994.DevelopmentbetrayedÑTheendofprogressandacoevolutionaryrevisioningofthefutureLondon:Routledge.OECD(OrganisationforEconomicCooperationandDevelopment)1998.Towardssustainablecon-sumptionpatterns:Aprogressreportonmembercountryinitiatives.Paris:OECD.Oswald,A.1997.Happinessandeconomicper-EconomicJournal107(445):1,815ÐPhilippidis,G.andL.Hubbard.2003.Modellinghi-erarchicalconsumerpreferences:Anapplicationtoglobalfoodmarkets.AppliedEconomicsPrincen,T.,M.Maniates,andK.Conca.2002.frontingconsumption.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.Rayner,S.andE.Malone,eds.1998.Humanchoiceandclimatechange,Vol.1.Washington,DC:BattelleReisch,L.andI.R¿pke,eds.2004.Perspectivesfromecologicaleconomics.Chel-tenham,UK:EdwardElgar.Ridley,M.1994.TheRedQueenÑSexandtheevo-lutionofhumannature.Harmondsworth,UK:Pen-guinBooks.Ropke,I.1999.Thedynamicsofwillingnesstocon-EcologicalEconomics28(3):399Ð420.Rosenblatt,R.,ed.1999.Consumingdesires:Consump-tion,cultureandthepursuitofhappiness.Washing-ton,DC:IslandPress.Russell,R.andM.Wilkinson.1979.Asynthesisofmodernandneoclassicaltheory.NewYork:JohnWiley.Ryan,M.andA.Bate.2001.Testingtheassumptionsofrationality,continuityandsymmetrywhenap-plyingdiscretechoiceexperimentsinhealthcare.AppliedEconomicsLetters8(1):59Ð63.Sahlins,M.1976.Cultureandpracticalreason.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.Samuelson,P.1938.AnoteonthepuretheoryofconsumersÕbehaviour.5(17):61ÐSanne,C.2002.WillingconsumersÑOrlockedin?Policiesforasustainableconsumption.42(1Ð2):273Ð287.Schor,J.1998.TheoverspentAmericanÑUpscaling,downshiftingandthenewconsumer.NewYork:Ba-sicBooks.Schumacher,E.1973.Smallisbeautiful.London:Scitovsky,T.1976.Thejoylesseconomy.Oxford,UK:OxfordUniversityPress.Shaw,D.andT.Newholm.2003.Consumptionsim-plicityamongethicalconsumers.InAdvancesinPsychologyResearchvolume20,editedbyS.P.Shohov.Hauppauge,NY:NovaSciencePub-Shove,E.2003.Comfort,cleanlinessandconvenience:Thesocialorganisationofnormality.Oxford,UK:Shove,E.andA.Warde.1997.Noticingincon-spicuousconsumption.Paperpresentedtothe,LiveBetterbyConsumingLess? STATEOFTHEDEBATEEuropeanScienceFoundationTERMProgrammeWorkshoponConsumption,EverydayLifeandSustainability,Lancaster,UK:UniversityofLan-Simmel,G.1950.Themetropolisandmentallife.InThesociologyofGeorgeSimmel,editedbyK.Wolff.London:CollierMacmillan.Slesser,M.1997.Managementofgreed:Bio-physicalap-praisalofeconomicandenvironmentpotential.Edin-burgh:ResourceUseInstitute.Springborg,P.1981.Theproblemofhumanneedsandthecritiqueofcivilisation.London:GeorgeAllenandStein,B.1985.Themachinemakesthisman.StreetJournal,13June,30.Tooby,J.andL.Cosmides.1990.Thepastexplainsthepresent:Emotionaladaptationsandthestructureofancestralenvironments.EthologyandSociobiol-11:375Ð421.Trainer,T.1996.TowardsasustainableeconomyÑTheneedforfundamentalchange.Oxford,UK:JonCar-penterPublishing.UNDP(UnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramme)Humandevelopmentreport1998.Oxford,UK:OxfordUniversityPress.UNEP(UnitedNationsEnvironmentProgramme)2001.Consumptionopportunities:Strategiesforchange.Paris:UNEP.VandenBergh,J.C.J.M.,A.Ferrer-i-Carbonell,andG.Munda.2000.Alternativemodelsofindi-vidualbehaviourandimplicationsforenviron-mentalpolicy.EcologicalEconomics32(1):43ÐVeblen,T.1998.Thetheoryoftheleisureclass.1899.Reprintedition,GreatMindsSeries.London:PrometheusBooks.Vincent,J.andT.Panayotou.1997.Consumption:ChallengetosustainabledevelopmentOrdis-276(5309):53Ð57.Wachtel,P.1989.Thepovertyofafßuence.Philadelphia:NewSocietyPublishers.Wilhite,H.,H.Nakagami,T.Masuda,andY.Yamaga.1996.Across-culturalanalysisofhouse-holdenergyuseinJapanandNorway.EnergyPol-24(9):795Ð803.Wilson,E.O.2001.Thefutureoflife.NewYork:AlfredWorcester,R.1998.Morethanmoney.InThegood,editedbyI.ChristieandL.Nash.London:Wright,R.1994.ThemoralanimalÑWhywearethewayweare:ThenewscienceofevolutionarypsychologyLondon:Abacus.AbouttheAuthorTimJacksonisProfessorofSustainableDevel-opmentattheCentreforEnvironmentalStrategy(CES)intheUniversityofSurrey,Guildford,UnitedKingdom.HecurrentlyholdsaresearchfellowshipinsustainableconsumptionfundedbytheEconomicandSocialResearchCouncilandleadstheEcologicalEco-nomicsResearchGroupatCES.HeisalsochairoftheEconomicsSteeringGroupoftheU.K.SustainableDevelopmentCommissionandsitsontheU.K.RoundTableonSustainableConsumption.JournalofIndustrialEcology