Posted on October 20th, 2009 by Karl Wilding in Archived related news
Tagged as: ethical consumerism, individual participation, social capital, social participation
2 Comments

ShareThis

I’ve just posted on my NCVO blog an article that talks about how consumption is a valid and increasingly practiced way for people to get involved. I’ve copied this below; but for me the main question isnt whether it’s a type of participation, but whether we have prioritised this above other types, and if so, what are the implications?

My first charity Christmas gift catalogue arrived through the post yesterday. Browsing through the pages made me reflect on the increasing body of research out there on why and how people choose to get involved with causes, and in particular the rise of shopping as a form of – or should that be proxy for? – getting involved. (At this point I might as well shamelessly plug Pathways Through Participation, a research programme I’m involved in that looks at how people get involved over the courses of their lives.)

I’ve heard a range of terms used to describe this trend, but one of the most resonant is ‘direct debit citizenship’, a phrase I first heard whilst contributing to research on civil renewal and active citizenship (a turn of phrase I havent heard since the Home Secretary resided in Sheffield). Public policy makers and politicians alike have been concerned for some time now that people are getting less involved in the institutions and democratic processes of society - most visibly a decline in voter turnout and political party membership. Beyond this ‘civic’ engagement, I think evidence is weaker for a decline in ‘civil’ engagement with voluntary organisations, but regardless of the evidence the narrative remains both powerful and popular.

Some are in turn arguing that an increase in buying ethical or charitable goods, and avoiding products from companies doing wrong (‘buycotting’) are indicative of us all finding an alternative to time-consuming engagement. In other words, choosing to express our activism through consumerism - the organic vegatable box instead of the ballot box. Even charitable giving, it is argued, has been consumerised for the time-poor citizen: just give £2 a month and you have discharged your commitment.

I’m not arguing that shopping around for a better society is a poor alternative to getting engaged as an activist, volunteer or campaigner. In fact, our Pathways research is keen to understand the links between these different types of involvement, with the potentially enticing idea that we can understand how one activity might lead to the other. But one of the questions we have been thinking about is whether we have priveliged one type of activity over another: in other words, would we rather supporters buy stuff or write letters? Purchase or protest?

I don’t need to point out here some rather obvious contradictions for a sector that should hopefully be reducing its carbon footprint. I also know that earned income is going to be crucial in a time when other sources of funding are going to be under pressure. But I can’t but help wonder what will be the ‘impact of the recession’ (© every blog on the web over the last 12 months) on the trend of spending money to achieve your social goals instead of giving time. There’s certainly plenty of evidence to suggest that volunteer enquiry levels have increased significantly - and notwithstanding difficulties of finding placements, presumably levels of involvement have increased. Might this spread beyond formal volunteering? A recent article in the Washington post (cited in Thomas Sanders’ excellent social capital blog) argued that the recession was leading to an increase in ‘neighboring’. I quote:

“There’s been an overwhelming increase in participation overall,” said Kisha Wilson-Sogunro, neighborhood services manager for Manassas. “People want to get back to the basics. They understand, especially with the housing crisis, you just don’t know who is living next to you, and all of a sudden it’s a foreclosure. . . . If you would have been neighborly, you’d know who to call if something’s going wrong.”

One would hope this might also be the case in the UK, but some of the discussions I’ve heard have centred around the threat of downturn to community cohesion: I’d be interested to hear about any evidence here. There’s certainly a burgeoning body of research about well-being and happiness, some of which has been highlighted by the Lodestar Foundation. I’m not going to pretend I know or understand it all, but it might be worth us all reflecting on Thomas Sanders’ observation that involvement in social activities (not buying more stuff we can’t afford anyway?) probably makes us happier and contributes to a better society.

(Thanks to the excellent John McNutt for alerting me to the blog on social capital! You can see how John is making the world a better place at www.policymagic.org where you’ll find some great resources to help you with online advocacy.)

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.