The market for anti-consumerism
The Rebel Sell: How the Counterculture became Consumer Culture
By Joseph Heath and Andrew Potter
Capstone Publishing Ltd, 2006, £11.99
Reviewed by
Sean Figg
"THE OVERWHELMING majority of what gets called
radical, revolutionary, subversive or transgressive is nothing of the
sort… This is the rebel sell". This is Joseph Heath and Andrew Potter’s
criticism of ‘counterculture’. The authors set out to debunk the ‘myth’
that counterculture is anything other than ‘pseudo-rebellion’, something
entirely compatible with capitalism.
Counterculture is a broad term. For the authors it
encompasses those movements, sub-cultures and lifestyles that reject
‘mainstream society’ in its entirety. They poke fun at hippies,
generation X-ers, and many strands of the environmental and
anti-globalisation movement. The polemical tone of the book and popular
style in which it is written makes for entertaining reading. There are
frequent references to popular movies and songs making it highly
accessible. One of the most amusing aspects of the book is how the
authors turn upside down many of the most cherished beliefs of
countercultural rebellion, arguing that many acts of ‘rebellion’ have
the opposite effect to those intended.
Rather than attacking from the left or the right,
the authors would have us think that they are criticising from the
position of common sense. They say that "what we are presenting is not a
cultural critique of the countercultural idea, but rather a political
one". They argue that the type of ‘cultural politics’ counterculture
represents "may be fun, but it is not the stuff out of which progressive
social movements are built". It is hard to disagree with many of their
practical criticisms of countercultural rebellion. However, their foray
into the theory that informs countercultural rebellion is a little less
clear-cut.
The authors trace the idea of an outright rejection
of ‘mainstream society’ back to intellectuals such as Jean Baudrillard
and Guy Debord, who used concepts such as ‘total ideology’ to describe
capitalist society. They saw ‘consumerism’ as lacking any authenticity
or anything genuine, as essentially controlling the minds of the masses
through advertising. A new counterculture was needed, ‘the system’ had
to be completely rejected.
This idea is traced back to the disillusion created
by the horrors of Nazism and the influence of Freudian ideas. The idea
of a ‘pathological society’ began to be put forward. ‘Mass society’
(industrial society) was taken to be problematic in and of itself,
rather than because the capitalist class was at the helm. "The people –
that is ‘mainstream society’ – came to be seen as the problem not the
solution". The trajectory from this analysis, it is argued, descends
into contempt for the working class (they ‘sold out’), incremental
reforms (they are ‘merely institutional’), individualistic solutions,
and isolated ‘alternative’ lifestyles.
But the authors’ attempt to debunk countercultural
theory is lacking. None of the ideas or movements they criticise are
placed in any sort of historical context. The fundamental error in
countercultural theory is located as seeing society with a "hierarchical
dependence between social institutions, the culture and, finally,
individual psychology. The latter two are thought to determine the
first. So if you want to change the economy, you need to change the
culture, and if you want to change the culture, fundamentally you have
to change people’s consciousness". Marxists would call this idealism –
the primacy of ideas over all else.
Counterculture takes an abstract approach, such as
‘culture jamming’ (subverting advertising by subtly changing the
meaning), rather than linking the need for change directly to people’s
experiences. Countercultural activism often takes the approach of trying
to shock, which almost always alienates most people, even if it often is
highly imaginative.
Many ‘left’ intellectuals did take fright at the
horrors of Nazism (and Stalinism). But they went too far in abandoning a
Marxist analysis of society. They were demoralised by the defeats of the
working class in the 1920s and 1930s, and by the hold of reformism on
much of the labour movement post-second world war. These had material
causes and were not the product of some brainwashing ‘total ideology’.
The same period that saw the birth of the
counterculture saw the massive growth of the social democratic parties,
such as Labour in Britain, and trade unionism. The 1970s and 1980s saw
massive class struggles. Yet it is portrayed by Heath and Potter that
all social criticism and struggle took the form of ‘countercultural
rebellion’ throughout this period.
Most of the chapters mock many of the practical
attempts at countercultural rebellion and the ideas that underpin them.
First up is the idea that ‘nothing justifies the rules’ imposed by ‘the
system’. The authors’ way of testing this approach is the age-old
refrain: what if everyone did it? For example, not abiding by social
norms such as queuing and traffic rules. The authors point out that
countercultural rebellion in many cases collapses the distinction
between dissent and deviance, saying that "dissent is like civil
disobedience. It occurs when people… have a genuine… objection to the
specific content of the prevailing set of rules. They disobey despite
the consequences that these actions may incur. Deviance, on the other
hand, occurs when people disobey the rules for self-interested reasons".
Counterculture is accused of rejecting a whole number of practical
solutions to real problems because these solutions would entail new
rules, and rules are bad in and of themselves.
Even more amusing is the attack on the
anti-consumerism of counterculture and the rejection of ‘mainstream’
styles, music, food, etc. The authors point out that "the counterculture
was, from its very inception, intensely entrepreneurial. It reflected…
the most authentic spirit of capitalism". In other words, if you reject
Nike footwear you create a market for ‘alternative footwear’. Brands
such as Vans and Airwalk are mentioned as multimillion-dollar examples.
The authors point out that it is the quest for distinction not
conformity that drives consumer capitalism, with new desires constantly
emerging and the need for a rapid turnover of styles and fads. What is
counterculture about if not seeking such distinction? It turns out that
it is specific consumer tastes rather than consumerism per se that
countercultural rebels object to. Or as it is described elsewhere in the
book "a critique of what other people buy".
At other points countercultural rebels are described
as "the shock troops of mass tourism" in their quest for the exotic,
‘narcissistic’ in trying to find their ‘true self’ through Eastern
religions, and ‘self-indulgent’ when it comes to the wealth and time
required to live ‘in harmony with nature’. At times the tone is maybe
too condescending towards counterculture, although when some
countercultural ‘theorists’ are quoted about the ‘brainwashed masses’
you can forgive them a great deal.
The authors are keen to stress that living a
lifestyle of your own choosing and being as distinctive as you like is
not what they are attacking: it is the idea that this somehow challenges
the system that they object to. But what alternative do the authors
propose? Unfortunately, the theoretical weaknesses of counterculture –
its superficial analysis of society, philosophical idealism and
utopianism – are mirrored in the authors’ conclusions. Their alternative
is the market! "We should strive to perfect the market, not abolish it.
One need only glance at an introductory economics textbook to see what
an ideal market would look like".
Amusingly, at the start of the book, the authors
state that "decades of countercultural rebellion have failed to change
anything", but later comment that "it is the failure of the market, not
the market itself, that is responsible for most of the problems… of the
past two centuries". So, while they are only willing to give
counterculture decades to prove itself, the market gets centuries!
Contradictorily, the authors come out with a variation of
interventionism a mere paragraph later. After imploring us to construct
the perfect market, we are told that "obviously, many corporations
engage in bad practices… [and] will continue to do so until someone
forces them to stop… the primary objective of the progressive left
should be to control the state".
The confused ideas of counterculture and equal
confusion of Heath and Potter make you cry out for the penetrating
clarity of a Marxist analysis. The authors have the counterculture’s
failings pretty well sussed. In this sense, the book is fun and useful.
But, while it is critical throughout, it is vital to keep your own
critical faculties on hot standby.
Their attempt to debunk Marxist economics isolates
and ignores all but the concept of overproduction. Karl Marx once wrote
that "the ideas of the ruling class are in
every epoch the ruling ideas". A critique of counterculture
from the point of view of ‘common sense’ inevitably leads to support for
the status quo. Hence, the dull reformist conclusions in an otherwise
entertaining book.
|