Alternative to "There is no way to change the status quo without discomforting those who are comfortable with the status quo." , Philosophy homework help

User Generated

FgbezFunqbj

Humanities

Description

You need to answer this question based on the information in the document!

Question:

"There is no way to change the status quo without discomforting those who are comfortable with the status quo." In Power and Love, by Adam Kahane

Do you agree with this? If not, what is the alternative? If so, how can it fit with spirituality in the workplace?

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Personal Ethics in the Corporate World by Elizabeth Doty 11/19/2007 a strategy+business exclusive © 2007 Booz & Company Inc. All rights reserved. strategy+business leadingIDEAS Personal Ethics in the Corporate World How to confront the moral tensions inherent in corporate life and come out with your ethics intact. 1 by Elizabeth Doty I n today’s high-pressure work environment, it is not unusual for conflicts to arise between our values as individuals and the compromises that we must make for our organizations. After interviewing people who had struggled to remain true to their personal values, I explored this dilemma in “Winning the Devil’s Bargain,” published in the Spring 2007 issue of strategy+business, and then discussed it in an s+b online seminar. The response to the seminar was so enthusiastic that there wasn’t enough time to address all of the audience questions. Here, I take on some of the unanswered queries. I am an instructor in a business school; my area of focus is sustainability and corporate social responsibility [CSR]. What do you think is important to convey to young people or students about developing the “bigger game”? How can they maintain a sense of realistic idealism? The moment when we leave business school and enter the workforce is a crucial one. It’s a time when we tend to squelch our own aspirations based on assumptions about making a living or on a difficult experience. Addressing this pattern is especially important as more companies embrace sustainability and CSR, so the inevitable challenges of institutions don’t discourage us. That said, here are a few points to help those about to embark. • Figure out what your bigger game is. It is probably a combination of what you believe needs to be done in the world and your particular strengths and preferences. In fact, I would almost say that wherever you see barriers, those are potential bigger games. Another ingredient of an effective bigger game is that you are likely to be able to meet your basic needs while pursuing it. This is about the long haul; it requires us to sustain ourselves, but not to sacrifice ourselves. • Don’t expect a predefined path. Too often people assume that the only valid paths are those that are well publicized. Once you find your bigger game, you will probably have to seek out the unique settings where you can pursue it. As one young person I interviewed said, “I’d really prefer to work on something that is of service. But they weren’t recruiting for that.” • Challenge the simplistic dichotomy of “good guys/bad guys.” Study what limits and enables organi- zations to live up to their aspirations, and learn about the crucial role of followers — so you don’t become disillusioned when even the most inspired organization struggles to stay true. • Adopt an ongoing practice for broadening your thinking. This was the source of continued growth and realignment for many of those I interviewed. Some examples of such practices could include reading books outside your area of expertise, giving yourself a “pulse strategy+business leadingIDEAS Elizabeth Doty (edoty@worklore.com) is an organizational consultant, a 12-year veteran of the hotel industry, a Harvard MBA, and a “recovering reengineer.” Her firm, WorkLore, applies systems thinking, simulation, and storytelling for clients in manufacturing, high tech, financial services, educational testing, and real estate operations. Her Weblog is http://devilsbargain.wordpress.com/. 2 check” every five years, or sustaining friendships with those in other spheres. Would starting my own business help me avoid compromising my values? Starting a business can be a promising solution for some of us, but we need to recognize the additional strains it creates. It does free us to be the architect of our own commitments and choices and theoretically to be truer to what we value. It allows us to craft innovative offerings, and can offer us the flexibility to pursue more than just money — especially if the company is private. But starting a business also puts us in direct contact with the forces that probably led our prior organizations to their compromises. We must still engage with the larger business context as we obtain financing, hire employees, and market our products. Is our new cause so valuable that we feel justified in promising the investors whatever it takes to get the funding? Will our employees now withhold some of the truth out of deference to our authority? One dedicated leader who left the corporate world to run a small business described to me how challenging it is to remember our deeper beliefs in the midst of keeping a business alive. I think the key is to remember that we are not inherently the good guys just because we start out with good intent. It takes a lot to evade the self-justifying tendencies that all of us confront. Knowing that, we may be just the ones who can meet the challenge of running a business while remaining true. How can we as consultants help our clients make ethical decisions and not cross over to the “dark side”? There is an important opportunity here that is not often named. As David Rock and Jeffrey Schwartz described in “The Neuroscience of Leadership,” [s+b, Summer 2006], the amount of attention we devote to something affects how strongly it plays out in our decision making. As consultants, we can envision ourselves serving as an active representation of our clients’ larger perspectives and purposes — perhaps as a counterbalance to the threats and siege mentality that can accompany crises and obscure win-win solutions or hidden degrees of freedom. This can be as simple as asking questions from the perspective of a client’s larger intent. I also think consultants can serve as part of the support system that helps leaders keep their own score and draw meaning from efforts that perhaps no one else sees or that won’t pay off for years to come. A colleague just told me a story about an executive who was struggling because his leadership efforts were not acknowledged (although they were received and acted upon). When my friend, who was this man’s coach, asked him why he had gotten into the field in the first place, the executive described an inspiring mentor named George who had revealed his own bigger game. As they continued to speak about his need for acknowledgment, the coach said to him, “I imagine George would be tremendously proud of you right now.” As simple as this confirmation was, the leader was visibly moved by it. Perhaps we all need a witness to sustain our efforts, and consultants may be able to help provide that. About a year ago, I left the nonprofit world of social/human services for the for-profit world of corporate business. I still have difficulty in the shift. Will strategy+business leadingIDEAS 3 this uncomfortable feeling ease or does this internal struggle continue? I understand that must be challenging. I remember spending time with a nonprofit and finding it shockingly satisfying just to be able to name what I cared about without coming across as naive, foolish, or weak. I’d suggest you consider several questions to clarify your intent and enable you to “write your own contract.” What did it serve for you to enter the corporate world? What can you accomplish there that is worth your energy? What do you need to sustain yourself (all of yourself, not just materially), what is nonnegotiable, and how will you keep score on what matters to you? You should also ask yourself whether the different perspective that you bring has the potential to make a contribution to that organization. What values do you share and respect, and where does the tension lie? People at the company may not see either. It’ll take some skill, but you may be able to represent the differences in a constructive, nonjudgmental way that broadens others’ sense of possibilities. I suspect it may continue to be difficult, but if you are truly there to serve something you value, you can improve your situation by recognizing the challenge as worthwhile and being generous about lining up support for yourself. What have we learned from WorldCom, Tyco, and Enron? These most recent crises, coupled with observations from my interviews, suggest three patterns we might learn from. First, although we can argue about what causes certain leaders to cross the line, followers clearly play a role in sustaining that direction. And I think our choice as followers is primarily this: Do we want to know? Yet as we become more and more dependent on an organization — financially and for our sense of achievement — it becomes increasingly difficult to let ourselves see. This is why I think it’s so important to actively maintain our base of independence so we can be courageous when the time comes. Second, I hope we loosen our assumption that the bad guys are somehow a completely different breed. In Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts, Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson show how, through the natural process of self-justification, we all have the potential to delude ourselves about the ways we may be causing harm. “Whistle-blower” Sherron Watkins has said that “there’s a little Enron in all of us.” It’s only when we recognize this that we’ll create ways to talk to one another and sort out what we might be missing without rushing to judge and accuse. Finally, I want to point out that although the resulting regulations, penalties, and controls have been cumbersome, I have heard several stories in which they gave people the support they needed to say “no.” For example, a controller who was asked to sign a forecast she did not feel was accurate said, “No, I don’t think so. I’m not going to go to jail for you guys.” + Resources Ira Chaleff, The Courageous Follower: Standing Up To and For Our Leaders (Berrett-Koehler, 2003): Concrete advice for calling (and re-calling) leaders to their highest purposes. www.amazon.com/dp/157675247X/ Elizabeth Doty, “Personal Ethics in the Corporate World,” s+b Webinar, 10/25/07: The online seminar that generated these questions, and many others; a recording of the event and a PDF of the presentation are available. www.strategy-business.com/webinar/webinar-ethics_in_corp_world Elizabeth Doty, “Winning the Devil’s Bargain,” s+b, Spring 2007: When the business world compromises an individual’s values, courage and climate can make all the difference. www.strategy-business.com/article/07101 Debra E. Meyerson, Tempered Radicals: How Everyday Leaders Inspire Change at Work (Harvard Business School Press, 2003): A practical description of how individuals influence a company’s culture and practices. www.amazon.com/dp/1591393256/ David Rock and Jeffrey Schwartz, “The Neuroscience of Leadership,” s+b, Summer 2006: Breakthroughs in brain research explain how to make organizational transformation succeed. www.strategy-business.com/ article/06207 Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson, Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts (Harcourt, 2007): A study of the pervasiveness of self-justification, denial, and rationalization in a variety of settings. www.amazon.com/dp/0151010986/ Winning the Devil’s Bargain Weblog: Elizabeth Doty’s recently launched blog inviting discussion on these topics. http://devilsbargain.wordpress.com/ WorkLore Web site: Elizabeth Doty’s company, with additional resources available. www.worklore.com/ strategy+business magazine is published by Booz & Company Inc. To subscribe, visit www.strategy-business.com or call 1-877-829-9108. Theor Soc (2008) 37:229–270 DOI 10.1007/s11186-007-9058-5 A RT I C L E The citizen-consumer hybrid: ideological tensions and the case of Whole Foods Market Josée Johnston Published online: 30 December 2007 # Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2007 Abstract Ethical consumer discourse is organized around the idea that shopping, and particularly food shopping, is a way to create progressive social change. A key component of this discourse is the “citizen-consumer” hybrid, found in both activist and academic writing on ethical consumption. The hybrid concept implies a social practice – “voting with your dollar” – that can satisfy competing ideologies of consumerism (an idea rooted in individual self-interest) and citizenship (an ideal rooted in collective responsibility to a social and ecological commons). While a hopeful sign, this hybrid concept needs to be theoretically unpacked, and empirically explored. This article has two purposes. First, it is a theory-building project that unpacks the citizen-consumer concept, and investigates underlying ideological tensions and contradictions. The second purpose of the paper is to relate theory to an empirical case-study of the citizen-consumer in practice. Using the case-study of Whole Foods Market (WFM), a corporation frequently touted as an ethical market actor, I ask: (1) how does WFM frame the citizen-consumer hybrid, and (2) what ideological tensions between consumer and citizen ideals are present in the framing? Are both ideals coexisting and balanced in the citizen-consumer hybrid, or is this construct used to disguise underlying ideological inconsistencies? Rather than meeting the requirements of consumerism and citizenship equally, the case of WFM suggests that the citizen-consumer hybrid provides superficial attention to citizenship goals in order to serve three consumerist interests better: consumer choice, status distinction, and ecological cornucopianism. I argue that a true “citizen-consumer” hybrid is not only difficult to achieve, but may be internally inconsistent in a growthoriented corporate setting. J. Johnston (*) Sociology Department, University of Toronto, 725 Spadina Ave., Toronto, ON M5S 2J4, Canada e-mail: joseejohnston@gmail.com 230 Theor Soc (2008) 37:229–270 Whole Foods Market (WFM)1– the world’s largest ‘natural’ foods empire – is encouraging me to change the world by changing what I eat. Walking into a WFM store, I see a reassuring slogan, “Whole Foods, Whole People, Whole Planet,” advertised along with its “core values” on everything from paper napkins to the store walls. A large wall sign of a juicy, dripping steak is underscored with the text, “feel good about where you shop” – a promise and challenge reiterated on the brownpaper shopping bags and re-usable cloth bags. Another large sign floating from the ceiling depicts fish, and gives me the same “feel good” message along with the added information: “Seafood flown in from our very own wharf.” I go to pay for my groceries, which seem consistently to spill over from my prescribed list, and include items ranging from organic dupuis lentils to hand-made coconut dusted marshmallows. At the cashier, I notice pictures of local farmers depicted on the check-out screen, along with the assurance that I am supporting them with my shopping choices. As I walk past the check-out, I peruse a collection of pamphlets under the sign “Take-action!” and pick up some information on genetically engineered foods, and a “natural primer for the carb conscious.” I feel excited about the delicious food I have purchased, but confused about my role. Am I acting as a consumer looking out for my own interest in artisanal cheese and slow-rise bread, or am I a citizen supporting local agriculture and the “whole planet” through my shopping? Does Whole Foods offer a new opportunity for shoppers to become “citizen-consumers” who can have it all – pursue their interest in delicious food, while feeling good about their responsibilities to other people, other species, and the environment? Despite a broad consensus that consumers are key actors in global political systems (Beck 2000; Miller 1995), substantial debate remains about the extent to which these kinds of market opportunities represent new opportunities for consumers to exercise citizenship (Micheletti et al. 2004; Zukin and Smith 2004; Soper 2004; Slater 1997; Gabriel and Lang 2006; Scammell 2000).2 As shopping activities are more prominently linked to social and environmental causes, academic and activist accounts of consumer “activism” explicitly and implicitly collapse the distinction between “consumers” and “citizens,” suggesting that “voting with your dollar” is a 1 While WFM’s aspirations are oriented towards customer concerns of health and environmental sustainability, its growth strategies are unabashedly entrepreneurial, garnering massive growth, profits, and an impressive record of expansion and acquisitions. In 2006, WFM boasted revenues of $5,607 million − a 19% increase from 2005. Earnings per share in 2006 were $1.41, which was a 40% increase from the previous year. In 2007, the company reported that it employed 39,000 people, and had 195 stores in the USA, Canada, and the UK. Even though Whole Foods Market faces competition, particularly from the large-scale entry of WalMart into the organic sector, industry analysts consider Whole Foods Market the industry giant of natural foods (especially after the February 2007 $565 Million dollar buyout of its major competitor, Wild Oats) as well as a solid economic performer (e.g., WFM was named the best 2007 retail stock by The Motley Fool stock advisors; Lomax 2007). 2 Approaches emphasizing the manipulation of consumers are most often associated with the Frankfurt School and post-war critiques of the advertising industry (e.g., Marcuse 1964; Packard 1981, but today, such approaches are often viewed as overly pessimistic and old-fashioned because they underestimate consumer agency, and over-state the importance of selling (or manipulating) consumers (Micheletti 2003:70; Schudson 1991, 1984). Against Frankfurt pessimism, more optimistic accounts focus on consumers’ abilities to manipulate the commercial environment to construct meaningful lifestyles and identities (e.g., Fiske 1989; Abercrombie 1994; Nava 1991). Further, a voluminous business literature on the topic emphasizes how consumer demand fuels the growth of socially responsible corporations promoting social justice and environmental sustainability (Cairncross 1992; David 1991; Heald 1988). Theor Soc (2008) 37:229–270 231 highly significant, if not a preferred venue for political participation (Dickinson and Hollander 1991; Shaw et al. 2006; Stolle et al. 2005; Arnould 2007; Barnett et al. 2005; Schudson 2007; Stolle and Hooghe 2004; Hilton 2003:1). Even cautious accounts (Soper 2004; “’Gabriel and Lang 2005) suggest possibilities for a new era of hybrid citizen-consumers where shopping can serve as an entry point to larger political projects associated with citizenship. An investigation of the citizen-consumer is a timely subject of inquiry. The hybrid concept has gained considerable currency among consumers, and is increasingly prominent within academic work that addresses the hybrid concept’s sociological, economic, political, and philosophical implications (e.g., Jubas 2007; Slocum 2004; Soper 2004, 2007). Although the academic literature depicts the citizen-consumer in relatively buoyant terms, there is a paucity of empirical work that examines its manifestation in “real-life” market settings and explores the ideological contradictions that play out on the ground level of ethical shopping. At the same time, there is also a need for social theoretic work on this topic (Gabriel and Lang 2005:39–40), that explores the contradictions that play out on the ground level of ethical shopping. As such, this article has two purposes: to explore theoretically and to study empirically a specific market context that frames ethical consumption and the hybrid citizenconsumer. First, this is a theory-building project that unpacks the citizen-consumer concept, asking how the citizen-consumer hybrid is assembled, what ideological tensions and contradictions does it appear to engender, and how it fits within a larger discourse of ethical consumption. The second purpose of the article is to relate theory to an empirical case-study of the citizen-consumer using a case-study of Whole Foods Market (WFM), a corporation frequently touted as an ethical market actor. To be clear, my goal is not to evaluate WFM and its transformative possibilities in their entirety, but to examine specifically the manifestation of the citizen-consumer concept in its shopping spaces, thus revealing some of its contradictions. Although it is important to understand how consumers engage with (and avoid) ethics while shopping, this article brackets the question of individual consumer motivations, which are often conflicted, complex, and multifaceted (Sassatelli 2006: 224; Schudson 1991). The WFM case cannot be generalized to all other corporate retail environments,3 but it remains an important case given its market prominence, and the prominent way ethical consumer discourse is employed in its shopping spaces. Upon close inspection of the ideals that the citizen-consumer concept is purported to embody in this specific case study, I identify three ideological contradictions that privilege the goals of consumerism over the goals of citizenship. As a consequence, I argue that consumers generally and scholars of consumerism alike should be cautious about the potential for a balanced citizen-consumer hybrid, particularly as it manifests in a corporate market setting. While consumer politics attracts increasing scholarly interest (e.g., Hilton 2007; Nelson et al. 2007; Micheletti 2003; Stolle et al. 2005; Barnett et al. 2005; Miller 2001; Sassatelli 2006), studies of ethical consumers frequently focus on specific 3 While positivist analysis focuses on a case’s ability to represent a larger population, in critical theory’s interpretive tradition, cases are used to bridge the nomethetic/ideographic divide: they provide a source of rich descriptive data, but are also important for their ability to extend out to, and engage with, larger theoretical issues and struggles over power (see Burawoy 1998; Steinmetz 2004). 232 Theor Soc (2008) 37:229–270 sectors (e.g., fair-trade coffee, organic food), leaving the topic of ethical consumption as a broader phenomena relatively under-theorized (Gabriel and Lang 2005: 39–40). This study contributes to this literature not only by helping to move beyond the hero/victim dichotomy of the ethical consumer, but also by conceptualizing the limits and potential of the citizen-consumer hybrid through an examination of the ideological tensions it embodies in a concrete setting. I ask how one particularly influential corporation contributes to the balance between citizenship and consumer ideals within ethical consumer discourse. In addition, concentrating on the consumption end of the alternative food economy complements recent food scholarship on the contradictions of organic food production (Guthman 2000, 2004; Allen and Kovach 2000), and addresses the neglect of consumer politics in the sociology of food and agriculture (Goodman and DuPuis 2002:5). The rest of this article is divided into five sections. In the first section, I specify the analytic focus and explain why it is important to interrogate the citizen-consumer hybrid. I also justify the discursive methodological approach employed and the specific case study of Whole Foods Market. In the second section I describe the history of consumer activism in order to understand the contemporary discourse of ethical consumption. The third section presents my analytic strategy for identifying the ideological tensions at play and for evaluating how they compete for dominance in ethical consumer discourse. Evidence from the case study is discussed in the fourth section to illustrate the three ideological tensions inherent in the hybrid concept, and to show how WFM frames the hybrid in ways that privilege consumerism over citizenship goals. I summarize my findings in the fifth section to support my argument that the citizen-consumer hybrid is not a balanced articulation in the case of Whole Foods Market. Dialectics and contradictions in ethical consumer discourse Hybrid citizen-consumers and underlying ideological tension The unifying logic that weaves together the various strands of ethical consumer discourse suggests that commodity choice can satisfy an individual’s desire for personal health and happiness while generating sustainability and social harmony for society as a whole. This logic makes plausible the concept of the hybrid citizenconsumer, able to satiate personal desires while simultaneously addressing social and ecological injustices. This hybrid concept of a “citizen-consumer” is found in both activist and academic writing, and implies a social practice that can satisfy competing ideologies of consumerism (an ideal rooted in individual self-interest) and citizenship (an ideal rooted in collective responsibility to a social and ecological commons).4 The hybrid citizen-consumer concept potentially broadens our understanding of citizenship by troubling traditional masculine assumptions of citizenship 4 Consumerism focuses on individual choice and shopping pleasure, while citizenship generally emphasizes the importance of civil society to channel citizens’ rights and responsibilities for the greater public good, or commons (Stevenson 1995:110; Gabriel and Lang 1995; Soper 2007:215). I appreciate that scholars have begun to problematize the citizen-consumer distinction, and describe these ideals and debates below. Theor Soc (2008) 37:229–270 233 that overlook how women’s “private” consumption roles contribute to public life, while drawing attention to the interconnections between economic, political, and cultural realms of social life (Jubas 2007:232; Soper 2007:206). While hopeful, this hybrid concept needs to be theoretically unpacked and empirically explored. More specifically, the hybrid citizen-consumer concept is held together by an ideological tension between consumerism and citizenship – ideologies that are frequently presented as complimentary and seamless through the ubiquitous message of “vote with your dollar.” Discourses possess unifying logics, as well as ideological contradictions (Ferree and Merrill 2000:455). Are both citizenship and consumerism coexisting and living well in the citizen-consumer hybrid? If not, what is the nature of the discord? While scholars have begun to explore the theoretical tensions involved with this hybrid concept (see Jubas 2007; Soper 1997), in this article I use a particular case-study to explore what cultural, political-economic, and ecological contradictions are engendered by the hybrid concept, and question whose interests are served in the framing process. Central to any discussion of the implications of the citizen-consumer hybrid are debates on consumer agency, which raise the following question: in what ways does ethical consumer discourse represent a new realm of consumer empowerment in global markets, and how might it simultaneously suggest a site for social manipulation by market actors? I address this question by focusing on the concept of citizen-consumer, taking care to avoid the pitfall of viewing consumers as either hapless dupes or unencumbered sovereign agents in the global economy. To do so, I draw from Miller’s (2001) work on “the dialectic” of shopping spaces, a strategy that investigates the contradictions of consumer spaces where an undeniable search for meaning in the shopping mall is shaped by larger institutional forces like corporations. A dialectical focus helps us avoid naïve optimism, or determinist pessimistic accounts of consumer-focused projects for social justice and sustainability. A dialectical approach recognizes that meaning and agency are present in consumption decisions, but takes seriously the structural conditions shaping consumer agency.5 Discourse analysis To study ethical consumer discourse, I draw from the critical sociological tradition of discourse studies, which is inspired by critical theory’s interest in power, and poststructuralism’s insights about the constitutive effects of language on social life. All discourse analysis begins from the starting point that discourse structures the space in which agency and subjects are constituted. Critically-oriented discourse analysis is not simply interested in how social reality is discursively constructed, but has a particular focus on how discursive activities create, sustain, and legitimate relationships of power and privilege (Fairclough 1992:67; Fairclough and Wodak 1997; Phillips and Hardy 2002:25; Carroll 2004:226). From this perspective, studying As Cook (2000) notes, “ample space exists for resistance to structurally given meaning, but this does not alter the fact that capitalist hegemony “depends upon the continual integration of person with commodity” (p. 111). 5 234 Theor Soc (2008) 37:229–270 discourse is not about the pursuit of disembodied texts, but possesses real potential for political engagement; as Fraser (1997) notes, “a conception of discourse can help illuminate how the cultural hegemony of dominant groups in society is secured and contested” (p. 152). A discursive approach is well suited to an analysis of contradictions, and helps avoid a simplistic dichotomy between consumer dupes versus consumer heroes. Discourse can be understood as a shared way of understanding the world that is unavoidably connected to political power; as such, discourse shapes how social agents do and do not respond to social and ecological issues, and constructs normative boundaries of accountability and responsibility (Dryzek 2005; Smith 1997). Discourse analysis is thus a useful tool for detecting nuance that moves us beyond good/bad dichotomies of ethical consumption, and instead works to theorize the ideological tension that inevitably underlies discourse (Oliver and Johnston 1999; Ferree and Merrill 2000; Carroll 2004: 229). To address the question of how discourse relates to ideology and frames, I draw from Ferree and Merrill (2000) exploration of these terms in a social movement context (p. 455); their work usefully suggests a visual metaphor of an inverted pyramid to describe the relations of discourse, ideology, and frames, with each respective term connoting a more coherent ideational concept at the level of content and specificity (Ferree and Merrill 2000:455). The concept of discourse heads this inverted pyramid, and can be understood as an inherently conflictual realm that “links concepts together in a web of relationships” (Ferree and Merrill 2000:455). Conflict within discourse involve the lower pyramid “layer” of ideologies, which are conceptualized as coherent systems of related ideas that combine explanation with normative prescription (Ferree and Merrill 2000:455–456; Oliver and Johnston 1999).6 Frames fall at the bottom of the inverted pyramid; they draw from the supporting ideas and norms of ideologies, but are understood as more specific cognitive structures advanced by social actors to shape interpretation and understanding of specific issues (Oliver and Johnston 1999). Relating this inverted pyramid to my own research goals, my focus in this article is on ethical consumer discourse, the related ideological conflicts between citizenship and consumerism within the hybrid concept of the citizenconsumer, and most specifically, on how these ideological conflicts are framed in the case of WFM. The case of Whole Foods Market (WFM) Ethical consumer discourse is constituted through a multiplicity of framing processes. Framing process can be understood as the “mechanism by which 6 Social movement scholars have emphasized a value-neutral interpretation of ideologies (Ferree and Merrill 2000, 455–456) to avoid the epistemologically problematic presumption that one can identify “true” causes of oppression. With Fegan (1996) and McLellan (1995), I suggest that a critical perspective on ideology remains key to understanding domination and inequality in socio-cultural arenas. For clarity of language and in keeping with the usage in social movement scholarship, I refer to “consumerism” and “citizenship” as competing ideologies, yet acknowledge that both terms invoke normative ideals that may, or may not be employed ideologically. My emphasis here is not on distinguishing ideology from “truth,” but on identifying on how ideological processes can naturalize and legitimize “ideas in pursuit of dominant interests,” which are not imposed in a crude, top-down fashion, but involve a negotiation between individual subjects and dominant cultural constructions (Fegan 1996:184). Theor Soc (2008) 37:229–270 235 discourses, ideologies and frames are all connected,” and while one actor cannot single-handedly construct a discourse, the output of multiple framing processes by actors works to produce a discourse (Ferree and Merrill 2000:456).7 Ethical consumer discourse is framed differently by different actors – actors that range from church groups to consumer cooperatives to publicly traded transnational corporations. The focus of this article is on the relatively neglected, but influential realm of corporate discourse (Gordon 1995). I selected WFM for my case study because this corporation’s market dominance affords it considerable impact on a larger ethical consumer discourse – a discourse loosely organized around the sentiment that shopping creates possibilities for consumers to “change the world” – and the citizen-consumer hybrid concept. While both large and influential, I do not intend to suggest that WFM is omnipotent or exists in a vacuum. To the contrary, its articulation of ethical consumer discourse reflects an ongoing dialectical interaction with activist organizations and a market context that continually pushes the corporation to adapt and evolve. Most famously, WFM developed policies on the humane treatment of animals after John Mackey was confronted with animal rights protestors at the corporation’s annual meeting in 2003 (Singer and Mason 2006:179). John Mackey was subsequently confronted with a damning appraisal of WFM by New York Times journalist and University of California Berkeley professor Michael Pollan, in the recent book The Omnivore’s Dilemma (Pollan 2006) and in a public debate hosted by UC Berkeley. Pollan critiqued WFM for contributing to the rapid corporatization of an increasingly unsustainable organics industry, while Mackey defended WFM business practices and argued that WFM is helping increase sustainability by expanding the accessibility of organic foods. In the public debate with Pollan, Mackey pledged to change certain WFM practices, including maintaining a stronger commitment to providing locally-produced foods.8 Although these interactions between the corporation and activist organizations are important to understand the future evolution of the firm, for the sake of analytic clarity, this study is necessarily situated in current debates, and acknowledges the likelihood of changes of direction as the larger terrain of food politics and social movement activism evolves and influences market opportunities. Data collection Inspired by Fairclough’s (1992:4) “three-dimensional approach” to the study of social discourse, which emphasizes the importance of situating texts within a larger social context, I focused this case study on collecting textual material and ethnographic observations from Whole Foods Market, while situating the case within a larger context of power and political-economy. Corporate texts were collected through store visits to one WFM location over a 2-year period, with an 7 Of course, all of the framing processes constituting discourse can never be captured in a single study. As Phillips and Hardy (2002) write, “[w]e can never study all aspects of discourse and we inevitably have to select a subset of texts for the purpose of manageability” (p. 10). 8 For an overview of this debate refer to the webcast provided by the University of California-Berkeley (http://webcast.berkeley.edu/event_details.php?webcastid=19147), as well as Pollan’s open letter to Mackey http://www.michaelpollan.com/article.php?id=80), and Mackey’s open letter to Pollan (http:// www.wholefoods.com/blogs/jm/archives/2006/05/an_open_letter.html). 236 Theor Soc (2008) 37:229–270 average of two research visits per month.9 The purpose of these visits was to use unobtrusive methods of data collection to gather ethnographic observations about the shopping experience,10 and collect textual material to document and analyze how WFM constructs a particular shopping experience that contributes to a larger ethical consumer discourse at a broad level, and constitutes the citizen-consumer subject more specifically. Case-study data collected included the following: (1) extensive field notes from store visits and participant observation at WFM events such as cooking classes and health seminars;11 (2) textual material printed and promoted by the store such as brochures, napkins, shopping bags, web-site material, and product packaging; and (3) the business press literature on WFM, which was collected and analyzed to understand the context of their success within a larger capitalist economy.12 The fieldwork data were primarily collected at one particular Whole Foods location (although other store locations were visited); the majority of the textual data (e.g., pamphlets, mission statements, web site content) were not location specific, but had a general orientation to a North American market. Consumer activists and corporate adaptation History of consumer activism How did we get to a point where consumers are responsible for “saving” the world by shopping? How did the idea of “citizen-consumers” emerge? One of the earliest forms of consumer activism is the boycott. The first recorded boycott was in Ireland in 1878 when peasants formed a workers union and refused to harvest the oats of Captain Boycott, demanding better wages and working conditions (Micheletti 2003:38). The boycott has subsequently been used by unions, political activists, and individual consumers as a way to enact political preferences through anticonsumption behavior (Micheletti 2003). Although the boycott is viewed as one of the earliest–and longest standing–forms of consumer activism, Gabriel and Lang (2005) usefully separate the history of consumer activism into four phases: (1) the cooperative phase originating in nineteenth-century England; (2) the value for Discourse analysis allows for multiple qualitative methods of data collection; “texts” are not simply printed words, but include other materials such as visual sources, spoken words, ethnographic field notes, and artifacts that are collected to understand better a discourse and its underlying ideological conflicts (Grant et al. 1998; Lutz and Collins 1993). Despite these multiple methods, what distinguishes discursive approaches is that they are studied with the objective of understanding a discourse “and its role in constituting social reality” (Phillips and Hardy 2002:10) while maintaining a constructionist epistemology that sees language as central to the constitution of social reality. 9 10 The majority of the ethnographic fieldwork was carried out by the author, with additional field work carried out by research assistants to corroborate observations and collect additional impressions. 11 Primary participant observation was focused on the Toronto WFM location; additional field research was collected at the Oakville Ontario, Portland, Oregon, and New York City (Manhattan) locations. 12 Proquest and EBSCO Host engines (databases that contained mainstream and financial newspapers) were searched generating roughly 1,500 citations, and 700 relevant articles. Also, Internet searches acquired additional information about WFM’s marketing, consumer practices, and labor relations. Theor Soc (2008) 37:229–270 237 money phase that emerged with Fordism; (3) Naderism in post-war USA, and (4) the “alternative consumption” that emerged in the 1980s. The first, cooperative phase of activism pre-dated Fordism and mass-consumerism, and focused on cooperatives as a means for working people to combat local monopolies that controlled grain milling and the price of food (Gabriel and Lang 2005:41). In these early cooperatives, people saw themselves as both producers and consumers, and the goal was to provide a cooperative model of self-help that could serve as a working-class alternative to the capitalist market logic of self-interest and profit maximization (ibid.) As Matthew Hilton (2003) points out in his history of consumer movements in the UK, cooperatives along with most pre-war consumer movements, were driven by “the politics of necessitous consumption” (p. 29). In the early twentieth-century, for example, the consumer movement in the UK was closely tied to the Labour movement, with working-class consumer activists (including housewives) fighting for affordable food for working-class families, and trying to increase public awareness of how specific commodities engendered political consequences for working people. Compared to this first cooperative phase of activism, the second “value for money” phase is more accurately labeled consumer activism, since it marked the development of activism focused more centrally and exclusively around a consumer identity. According to Hilton (2003), what distinguishes this post-war “best-buy” phase of consumer activism from earlier forms is the shift from concern over necessary commodities (like food and coal) to concern over the politics and prices of luxury items (like electric appliances). The foundations of this shift lay in the increasing separation of consumers from producers in the twentieth-century, the growth of the middle class, unfavorable outcomes of anarchic markets – like the appalling conditions described in Chicago meat yards in Upton Sinclair’s 1906 novel, The Jungle – and the mass consumerism of the post-war period (Hilton 2003; Gabriel and Lang 2005). The Great Depression only confirmed public suspicions about untrammeled market forces, and organizations emerged that were designed to help consumers navigate through anarchic markets, and make better purchases in an emerging era of mass consumption. In the UK and the USA alike, value for money consumer organizations tested consumer goods and provided information, an organizational format that ultimately manifested in the widely read magazine in the USA, Consumer Report. Upton Sinclair wrote The Jungle as a communist hoping to upset bourgeois rule, yet this second wave of consumer activism ultimately worked to improve the functioning of the market, providing better information to enhance consumer choices. The third phase of consumer activism, Naderism fomented in the particular legal context of the USA, and emphasized the potential dangers of anarchic market forces. Naderism depicted unregulated corporate capitalism as a threat to consumers, as was the case with the poorly designed Chevrolet Corvair that Ralph Nader exposed in his 1965 book, Unsafe at Any Speed. Although value for money activism had a top– down focus on providing information to consumers, Naderism emphasized that organized grassroots action and legal campaigns were necessary to force the government to intervene to protect public safety. This period of consumer activism was inspired by Nader’s exposé of the poor safety standards in the automobile industry, as well as his litigious approach to monitoring corporate responsibility and his support for grassroots consumer activism. Similar to the value-for-money wave 238 Theor Soc (2008) 37:229–270 of activism, Naderism was focused on consumer access to free and fair information, as well as corporate accountability, although Nader also suggested that individual consumers were more powerful when they acted as citizens – organizing collectively to lobby government, and mobilizing grassroots support to prevent capitalist systems from being dominated by unscrupulous corporate actors prioritizing profit over public safety (Gabriel and Lang 2005:46–48).13 While cooperatives, value-for-money, and anti-corporate forms of consumer activism continue to exist today, a fourth phase of consumer activism emerged in the 1980s that Lang and Gabriel term “alternative consumption” and Hilton (2003) terms “ethical consumerism,” but identified in this article as ethical consumption. Value for money and Naderist phases of consumer activism were focused on making the market safer for individual consumers, but this fourth phase of ethical consumption originated in concern that collective consumption patterns were unsustainable. A shift away from redistributive class politics towards post-industrial values (e.g., environmentalism) and recognition-based identity politics (e.g., sexual orientation), along with concerns about the social and economic impacts of globalization, helps to explain the emergence of this phase (Hilton 2003). This phase has also been fuelled by a growing “unease with abundance” where a life full of luxury consumer goods is seen to yield little personal or moral satisfaction (Hilton 2003:298; Soper 2007). Environmental awareness grew in the 1970s, particularly with the publication of Limits to Growth in the 1970s (Meadows 1972), which identified human consumption as a threat to the survival of the planet and the human species. In the 20 years following the publication of that report, the environmental movement gained considerable ground: large international environmental initiatives were organized like the Brundtland Commission, which published Our Common Future (1987); the term “sustainable development” became prominent; and popular understanding of capitalist externalities (e.g., environmental degradation) moved to the forefront of popular discourse (Hajer 1995:10; Seyfang 2004). As environmental awareness grew, the critique of consumer society became divided between a radical message seeking to challenge consumer society and reduce consumption (Gabriel and Lang 1995:6; Seyfang 2004:327), and a second, more popular ameliorative message encouraging consumers to consume carefully or differently – buying hybrid cars, energy efficient appliances, and organic strawberries (Cairncross 1992; Dryzek 2005:189; Gabriel and Lang 1995:182). The fourth wave’s anti-corporate sentiment While ethical consumption emerged out of environmentalism, it came to express concern over the panoply of late capitalist concerns ranging from human rights, unfair global trade, sustainability, corporate power, and other concerns of the global social justice (“anti-globalization”) movement. Popular authors and sociologists alike documented the rise of activism critiquing corporate power in the global economy on social and ecological grounds (see Starr 2000; Korten 1995; Karliner 13 Gabriel and Lang (1995) note that Naderism has not been readily reproduced in other countries, although they see Consumers International − a global network of consumer organizations with representation from 115 countries − as a manifestation of the Naderist stream of consumer activism that has been buoyed by anti-globalization critiques of corporate rule in anarchic market conditions (p. 48). Theor Soc (2008) 37:229–270 239 1997; Klein 2000), and challenging the legitimacy of transnational corporations in an increasingly neo-liberal and anarchic global marketplace (Bello 2002). The 1990s saw the emergence of an anti-sweatshop movement on university campuses (Ross 1997), increased publicity for AdBusters’ anti-corporate, culture-jamming tactics (Lasn 1999), and legal battles using charter revocation laws to challenge a corporation’s “right” to exist (Bakan 2004:157). Corporate boycotts were launched against multiple transnational corporations (e.g., Kraft Foods, WalMart, and Nike) for practices such as the use of genetically engineered ingredients, and the reliance on sweatshop labor. In addition, social activists publicized the link between environmental deterioration and the corporate pursuit of profits (Sklair 2001:198– 247), contributing to an anti-corporate “bad mood rising” documented and popularized by authors, such as Naomi Klein in her best-selling tome, No Logo (2000), and films such as The Corporation (Bakan et al. 2004). Although ethical consumption activism has taken on multiple targets, food has been central to the struggle. Food shopping is not simply a banal, private concern, but represents a key private/public nexus, as well as a potential entry-point to political engagement. This understanding draws from feminist understanding of social reproduction, which emphasize that food choices are not neutral, private matters, but rather represent a politicized, gendered, and globalized terrain where gendered labor and households intersect with states, capital, and civil society in varying balances (Katz 2003:257). Agriculture has been a key target of environmental activism, given its role as one of the largest, if not the largest, industries responsible for environmental devastation and greenhouse gases (Shrybman 2000) as well as concern over rural decline and the loss of the family farm. The fair-trade movement has piggy-backed on the anti-corporate messages of some global justice activism by emphasizing that many of the worst abuses in the global system are associated with foods that are integrated into our everyday life through transnational commodity chains – sugar, bananas, coffee, chocolate – magnifying consumers’ complicity in social abuses associated with their production. The fourth wave of ethical consumer activism has used these everyday foods as leverage points to generate reflexivity, encouraging consumers to think critically, buy more selectively, and seek out information on the environmental and social costs involved in their daily meals. Corporate adaptation and response It once seemed futile to expect organic produce in large supermarkets, but now WalMart shoppers can choose between conventional and organic products. In part, this change reflects how corporations have responded to the rise of ethical consumption activism, and its effective politicization of food issues in the public imagination.14 Many corporations, like WFM, offer consumers an opportunity to “make a difference” by purchasing products like organic foods and shade-grown coffee. There is a vast literature that tries to explain why companies have reformed 14 The state of our knowledge on consumer activism makes it is difficult, if not impossible, to parse out the impact of ethical consumer activism on corporations versus the pressures from other “ethical” voices like the media, the state, market competitors, and other members of civil society (Crane 2006: 220). 240 Theor Soc (2008) 37:229–270 their practices, and overall, these shifts in corporate behavior are understood as responses to public, government, and media pressure for reform, as well as a positive business opportunity that opens up new markets and increases efficiency (Heald 1988; Prakash 2000; David 1991; Vogel 2005). Although much of the business literature sees ethical consumption as a win–win opportunity (as per the “triple bottom line” that provides for people, the planet, and profits), critical questions are being raised. Scholars are scrutinizing corporate responses to consumer activism that range from superficial name-changes (e.g., tobacco giant Philip Morris became “Altria” in 2004, and part of Monsanto became “Pharmacia”), to the mandate for “corporate social responsibility,”15 to sustainable development initiatives (Johnston 2003).16 This article extends these questions to ethical consumer discourse, examining the manifestation of the citizen-consumer in the case of one prominent corporate actor, Whole Foods Market. Questions are focused on the hybrid citizen-consumer, an idea that seems to indicate the presence of moral regulation in the marketplace. The notion of consumers “voting with their dollars” has obvious populist appeal. As buying guides frequently remind shoppers, every shopping decision is an opportunity to cast a vote. But do the transformative aspirations of ethical consumption activism enable transformative outcomes, particularly when they are taken up by corporations? There is no simple “yes” or “no” answer to this question, since there are reasons for hope (Schor 2007) as well as cause for critical concern. Thomas Frank’s (1998) seminal work, The Conquest of Cool, describes the extraordinary ability of corporations to transform counter-cultural themes of rebellion and disenchantment into marketing opportunities (see also Heath and Potter 2004; Frank and Weiland 1997). Further, a key characteristic of post-Fordist society is not a mass market of uniform products and conformist consumers, but niche markets where specialized goods and services allow consumers to achieve distinction through carefully crafted identities and lifestyles (Turow 2000). From a critical perspective, ethical consumer strategies seem more like niche marketing opportunities allowing corporations to target privileged, conscientious consumers, than a substantive program for health, sustainability, and social justice at a global scale. Positive accounts of consumer activism Although ethical consumer strategies may appear complicit with capitalist marketing strategies and corporate co-optation, it seems myopic to dismiss summarily ethical 15 Much recent scholarship has cast considerable doubt on the ability of CSR to make tangible progress toward global environmental and social improvement (Vogel 2005; Locke 2006), and identified instances of corporate “greenwashing”, where companies put forward an environmentally friendly image but do little actually to reform their operations (Athanasiou 1996; Karliner 1997; Sutton 2004). 16 There is an untapped opportunity for social movement scholars to engage with critiques of corporate adaptation. While social movement scholars have identified the need to assess social movements’ impact on the state, other movements, and political-culture (Guigni et al. 1999; Gamson 1975; Meyer and Whittier 1994; Eyerman and Jamison 1998), little work has been to address the impact of social movement activism on corporate actors – even though activists and scholars alike emphasize the power of corporations in public life (Sklair 2001; Bakan 2004). Social movement scholars have elaborated new ways of thinking about transnational resistance (Keck and Sikkink 1998) and have examined specific campaigns targeting corporate globalization (Johnston and Laxer 2003; Evans et al. 2002; Carty 2002), but to avoid fetishizing these cases of resistance in the global justice movement, there is a need to gain greater insight into social change processes involving social movement critique and market adaptation. Theor Soc (2008) 37:229–270 241 consumer activism and its myriad projects for social change. A one-sided view of consumer cooptation seems deterministic and methodologically closed to the possibilities of new forms of consumer activism (Schor 2007; Miller 2007: 225, 229), as well as the historical intersections between counter-cultural movements and industry innovation (Turner 2006). Schor argues that the time is ripe for dialectical approaches that transcend a simple analysis of corporate cooptation,17 and instead engage with the dynamic interactions between consumer movements and market actors. Certain ethical consumer products, like fair-trade commodities, generate a price premium (Ransom 2001; Raynolds 2000) that addresses the social and ecological externalities of these commodity chains and suggests possibilities for an expansive “spatial dynamics of concern” (Goodman 2004). Coffee producers, for instance, achieve a higher price through fair-trade markets than through conventional coffee markets (Hudson and Hudson 2004; Raynolds 2002). While the entry of large capitalist firms into organic food production may have diluted core principles (Guthman 2004), by most accounts, organic farming techniques are less ecologically harmful than their conventional counterparts (Allen and Kovach 2000). The slow food movement argues that the pleasures of local, artisan foods is not a bourgeois privilege, but an entry point into issues of equality, sustainability, and resistance to corporate encroachment in the lifeworld (Labelle 2004; see Petrini 2001). More generally, feminist philosopher Kate Soper (2004, 2007) argues for the possibilities of an “alternative hedonism” where affluent citizen-consumers use personal consumption as an entry-point to larger political projects. Many continue to insist on either/or answers: are ethical consumers fodder for corporate marketing campaigns capitalizing on the rise of consumer concern, or does ethical consumption represent a new, radical form of activism where citizenconsumers satisfy both their self-interest and their responsibilities to others? A desire for a simple answer is understandable, however a binary approach proves intellectually and politically unsatisfying and suggests the importance of looking to concrete cases – of consumer movements, consumer organizations, and their corporate counterparts (my focus here) – to investigate dialectically the possibilities and contradictions of the citizen-consumer hybrid in ethical consumer discourse. Beyond good and bad: identifying adjudication criteria Understanding citizens and consumers as competing ideal types Ethical consumer discourse and the hybrid citizen-consumer concept, more specifically, contain a unifying logic suggesting that consumers can shop to satisfy their desires while producing an optimal social outcome. Despite this unifying logic, I argue that ethical consumer discourse contains a marked ideological conflict between consumerism and citizenship. The terms consumerism and citizenship are 17 For a critique of “co-optation” theory, see Thompson and Coskuner-Balli (2007). Although this critique usefully identifies potential limitations of a monolithic understanding of market cooptation of social movement ideals, I question the accuracy of suggesting that there is a unified body of “co-optation” theory that represents a “conventional theoretical standpoint,” since theories of co-optation come from multiple disciplines, and tend to emerge from the analytic margins rather than a disciplinary core. 242 Theor Soc (2008) 37:229–270 conceptually baggy in everyday parlance, leading to the commonplace observation that consumers now practice citizenship through their shopping decisions.18 It is not that consumers can never behave as citizens at the grocery store or shopping mall, but rather, it becomes necessary to unpack exactly what is meant by these terms, and what ideological conflicts are glossed over in the citizen-consumer hybrid. In this section, I systematically unpack consumerism and citizenship as ideologically competing ideal types to see better how they function in the broader discourse of ethical consumption. The concept of the citizen-consumer has evolved out of, and alongside consumerism, and shares many of its basic assumptions and principles. While “consumption” refers fairly straightforwardly to “using up” goods and services, consumerism refers to an ideology suggesting a way of life dedicated to the possession and use of consumer goods (Kellner 1983:74), rooted in the capitalist necessity of selling an ever-expanding roster of commodities in a globalized economy (Gottdiener 2000:281; Sklair 2001). Consumerism prioritizes commodity consumption, and suggests that “the best organized societies are those that place consumer satisfaction at the centre of all their major institutions” (Sklair 2001:5; Stevenson 1995:110; Gabriel and Lang 1995). According to the related “consumer sovereignty ideal,” consumers are not only the lucky beneficiaries of mass consumerism, but actually possess the power to drive the economy by determining what goods and services will be made available (Dickinson and Carsky 2006:29). Mass consumerism was ushered in with Fordism – an unprecedented economic arrangement that linked mass production with mass consumption. Fordist consumption is distinguished from the consumption patterns of earlier centuries where commodity choice was largely restricted to wealthy elites. The democratization of the idea of commodity choice was, and remains central to consumerism. As Gabriel and Lang (2006) write: “[w]hat sets modern consumption apart from earlier patterns is not merely the growth of spending power across social classes and strata, but, more importantly, the experience of choice as a generalized social phenomenon. No earlier social period afforded the social masses the choice of what to spend surplus cash on after the means of subsistence had been met” (p. 12). Consumerism presents a world where individual consumer choice is the optimal social condition. Choice is not only central to what consumers do in the marketplace (e.g., they must choose between literally thousands of commodities in a grocery store), but it is also central to the meaning attached to modern consumption and a modern self who makes autonomous choices expressing a unique identity (Taylor 1992:28), and whose sense of freedom is intimately connected to consumer choice (Bauman 1998). Put differently, modern consumption changed not just what people purchased, but the ideas and meanings around consumption, with a particular focus on the construction of identity through autonomous consumer choice (Glennie and Thrift 1992: 429). While consumerism relates strongly to choice and self-interest, when we put “citizenship” under the analytic microscope, we see a much different picture. The meaning of citizenship has been a hotly debated topic since the time of Aristotle, and one that determines the vision of public life under debate (Beiner 2006). While 18 For example, the recent RED campaign (November/December 2007) at the GAP asks the question on store signage, “Can the shirt off my back change the world?” and then answers, “Yes, this one can.” Theor Soc (2008) 37:229–270 243 political philosophers have traditionally understood citizenship as membership in a state or political community (e.g., Marshall 1992), I broaden the meaning of citizenship beyond the state-container of formal politics to encompass citizenship’s political-economic and political-ecological dimensions. This way of viewing citizenship sees the citizen as part of collective struggles to reclaim and preserve the social and ecological commons. A commons-based conceptualization of citizenship is not an idealist construction imposed from the top–down, but is rooted in already existing social struggles. The idea of “reclaiming the commons” is a phrase increasingly heard in the global justice movement (Goldman 1997, 1998:14; Johnston 2003; Klein 2001), and reflects a general interest in reorienting economies away from an exclusive focus on commodification and profit maximization, and towards a more equitable and sustainable provisioning of human needs.19 Hyper-commodification on a global scale can be understood as an enclosure of the commons, a development that threatens self-reliance and raises questions about the long-run sustainability of human societies (e.g., Clark and York 2005). This enclosure has lead social movements worldwide to call for public policy interventions and organizing efforts by citizens to “create a parallel economy of care and connection that can counter the negative effects of the domination caused by the economy of commoditization” (Mano 2002:99). A commons-based understanding of citizenship does not necessarily mean that markets or individual consumption styles are eradicated.20 However, the citizen-commons ideal type suggests that markets must be re-embedded in social structures so that basic goods, like nutritious sustainable food, do not only go to those who can afford it, and that alternate, non-commodified modes of needs provisioning – through needs reduction and cooperative provisioning – are equally developed (e.g., collective kitchens, community gardens, state-sponsored school meal programs).21 While consumerism maximizes individual self-interest though commodity choice, the citizen-commons ideal prioritizes the collective good, which means that individual self-interest and pleasure can be trumped in the interest of improving sustainability or access to the commons. In short, citizenship struggles to reclaim the 19 While the commons have been defined in many ways, philosopher John McMurtry (1999) usefully describes them as “human agency in personal, collective or institutional form which protects and enables the access of all members of a community to basic life goods” (p. 204). Life-good are distinguished from a commodity using two criteria: (1) freedom from a price barrier (while markets can be used to distribute life goods, they cannot be restricted to those with resources), and (2) the property of enabling vital lifecapabilities which includes not just the capacity to be physically alive, but the broad human range of thinking, acting, and feeling (McMurtry 2001: 827, 837). As Goldman (1998) insists, “[m]aintenance of the commons is thus one of the legs on which commodity production stands,” a fact that is increasingly recognized by capitalists themselves: “These ‘defenders’ of the commons (many of which are in the business of expanding access to private property and surplus-value production) argue that the sustainability of private-property regimes is actually completely dependent upon the maintenance of non-private property of the commons.” (pp. 16, 6). 20 21 This introduces complex debates about the possibilities and limitations of working with markets that cannot be explored here. For a discussion of the historical importance of markets in capitalism, see Wood (1999); on the connections between markets and ecological exhaustion, see van der Pijl (2001). A more positive assessment of markets and the environment is found in Hawken et al. (2000), but Guthman (2000) assesses market dynamics in organic agriculture and reaches more pessimistic conclusions (pp. 305–306). 244 Theor Soc (2008) 37:229–270 commons are collective, needs-oriented, and emphasize responsibility to ensure the survival and well being of others – human and non-human. How consumer choice operates ideologically While citizenship struggles to reclaim the commons resonate with global justice social movements, consumerism remains a powerful cultural force – a “ubiquitous and ephemeral” force that is “arguably the religion of the late twentieth century” (Miles 1998:1). Yet consumerism’s ubiquity is not an automatic indictment, and to provide greater critical precision, I ask a more specific question: how does consumerism operate ideologically? Ideological processes are understood as those that naturalize and legitimize ideas in service of dominant interests. Ideas are not imposed from the top–down, but rather, hegemony22 is created through a negotiation between individual subjects and dominant cultural constructions shaped by political-economic power (Fegan 1996:184). Although critical theory has a long tradition of condescension towards quotidian consumer pleasures, analysts should not underestimate the strong popular and emotional attachments to the idea of choice associated with consumerism, particularly since it is a rare arena of significant, tangible personal choice in modern life (Slater 1997:27). By offering a maximum number of choices to appeal to a wide variety of consumers, consumers can shape their self-concept and create an identity. If one’s conscience is troubled by the global mal-distribution of wealth or ecological deterioration, one has a choice to buy fairly traded and organically produced goods. By harnessing the power of consumer choice, ethical consumption appears to shape the market in a way that preserves the environment, addresses poverty, and promotes democracy. Exercising consumer choice appears as both a viable and convenient strategy – particularly when compared to the onerous demands of social movement organizations or trade unionism. Consequently, ethical shopping guides commonly emphasize how changing the world is “easy” when you focus on shopping for justice or sustainability.23 While the idea of consumer choice has a powerful cultural resonance, its role in ethical consumer discourse raises difficult questions. First, it is worth noting that the idea of “voting with your dollar” is not an invention of social justice activists or environmentalists, but is fundamentally rooted in classical market theory. Early in the nineteenth-century, Austrian economist Frank Fetter wrote, “every buyer ... determines in some degree the direction of industry. The market is a democracy where every penny gives the right to vote” (quoted in Dickinson and Carsky A neo-Gramsican use of the concept of hegemony emphasizes that elites cannot rule by force alone – cultural leadership is required to achieve cultural consent, which reinforces class inequality and often works to suppress critical thinking by its appearance common sense. While power is concentrated in key capitalist agents and organizations, a neo-Gramsican approach also see power and agency at the “bottom,” resting in the hands of civil society and social movements (e.g., Johnston 2001; Carroll 1992). 22 23 For example, in one book entitled It's Easy Being Green: A Handbook for Earth-Friendly Living (Trask 2006), the author writes that “Adopting better habits and ways of doing things doesn't require riches, inordinate discretionary time or overhauling your life, but these could be a few of the misperceptions that inhibit more Americans from acting on their predilection for a healthy environment” (p.10). The back cover furthermore lets us know that we can become green “without the fuss.” Theor Soc (2008) 37:229–270 245 2006:25). Similarly, the ideal of consumer sovereignty – consumers determining what goods and services are produced through their individual and independent consumer votes – was introduced by the economist William H. Hutt in 1934 (ibid., 28). With the rise of neo-liberal governance in the 1980s, the idea of consumer choice as freedom gained resonance. Milton and Rose Friedman wrote in 1980: When you vote daily in the supermarket, you get precisely what you voted for, and so does everyone else. The ballot box produces conformity without unanimity; the marketplace, unanimity without conformity (Friedman and Friedman 1980). With the era of ethical consumption activism, the idea of voting with your dollar was taken up to serve ends of sustainability and social justice (Dickinson and Carsky 2006). What is often overlooked with the grafting of consumer voting onto progressive causes, however, is the knotty relationship between individual consumer choice and self-interest. In the progressive version of “voting with your dollar,” it is not clear what happens to self-interest–the fundamental principal of market theory that assumes an optimal outcome is produced when individual consumers maximize their “utility” by prioritizing self-interest (Slater 1997:28–9). How and when is selfinterest trumped by a concern for others, or for the social and ecological commons? What kind of shopping spaces encourage the abnegation of self-interest, and what shopping spaces create an appearance of beneficence while reinforcing the hegemonic ideals of self-interest and unlimited consumer choice? With the ideal of consumer choice enjoying widespread cultural hegemony, it seems particularly challenging to create market spaces that markedly restrain consumer choice and selfinterest in the name of collective good. What is easier to sustain in a model of consumer voting is the idea of voluntary beneficence – a model that sustains an extremely flexible accounting of ethical consumer action in the marketplace. In this context, suppressing one’s self-interest, and acting on concern for the larger good through shopping decisions is depicted as just one choice among many. Consumer considerations beyond self-interest become a laudable, but ultimately a voluntary addition, since self-interested shopping behavior and freedom of choice remain broadly sanctioned ideals in consumer culture. The contemporary manifestation of “voting with your dollar,” or voluntary consumer beneficence, emerged in the context of a neo-liberal mode of governance that attained global prominence from the late 1970s, and that has proven an effective way of governing political subjects through self-regulation (Johnston and Laxer 2003:40; Rose 1999).24 With neo-liberal governance, the realm of formal political citizenship retracted as transnationalized states deferred to capital (Robinson 2001), and democratic deficits emerged leaving everyday citizens feeling disenfranchised from the formal political process (Bauman 1999; Putnam 2000; Nye 2001). While 24 To be clear, acceptance of neo-liberalism is not globally uniform, and important exceptions exist, particularly in China, Malaysia, and now in the “pink tide” of left-leadership in South America. The status of consumer organizations and state regulation is also not identical in Europe and North America. In contrast to the bottom-up consumer organizations found in North America, Burgess (2001) describes how state-sponsored consumer organizations in the EU work with an overarching regulatory state to re-gain the legitimacy lost with the diminishment of Keynesian welfare state models (p. 96). 246 Theor Soc (2008) 37:229–270 formal opportunities for citizenship seemed to retract under neo-liberalism, opportunities for a lifestyle politics of consumption rose correspondingly. Neoliberal governance actively promoted the idea of consumer choice in the market as a worthy complement to, and even substitute for the citizenship ideal of democratic participation. With the deregulation of the market and the devolution of welfare states, consumer authority was valorized from both the right and the left of the political spectrum. Tony Blair’s “third way” Labor government, for example, emphasized not government’s role to redistribute wealth, but increasing consumer choice in access to public services (Perris 2003; Clarke 2007). As states deferred responsibility for environmental regulation, consumers became increasingly responsible to self-manage environmental risks through consumption decisions. The president of Consumer International described consumer movements as “the regulators of the market in a globalized world” while working towards “a fair and just society” (Burgess 2001:101). While consumers have gained increased responsibility as regulators of the neoliberal global economy, shopping choices have always had political implications, as per the long-standing feminist insight that social reproductive work like grocery shopping and cleaning involves both power and politics.25 Understanding the political potential of grocery shopping and food choice leads me, along with feminist scholars of social reproduction to question, “how hegemony is secured – or might be frayed – in the overlapping spaces where home and work, the public and the private, state and society converge” (Mitchell et al. 2003:19). More specifically, how is hegemony secured or challenged through ethical consumer discourse as framed by Whole Foods Market? To answer this question, we need to spell out more explicitly what kind of adjudication criteria can be used to evaluate ideological struggles over consumerism and citizenship in the Whole Foods Market case study. Evaluating the citizen-consumer hybrid To avoid reducing consumer politics to bourgeois piggery, or uncritically lauding citizen-consumers as the new revolutionary agents, we can draw from social theory to develop criteria that allow us to evaluate specific empirical instances of food 25 Academic understanding of social reproduction has advanced beyond a narrow interpretation of childrearing, and connected globalized capitalism to the ecological and social reproduction of the labor force (Katz 2003; Micheletti et al. 2004:2; Hochschild and Ehrenreich 2003).Globalization scholarship has traditionally focused on the realm of production, yet the importance of social reproduction as a realm of necessity, vital for both social and ecological sustainability, has been highlighted by feminist geographers (Katz 2003), political economists (Sousa Santos 1995; van der Pijl 2001)), and ecological philosophers (McMurtry 2001). With neo-liberal reforms, cut-backs to the public sector and expanded markets worked to shift the work of social reproduction out in two directions: first, to charity-based organizations and nonprofit organizations providing services for marginalized populations, and second, to private corporations who provide services for those who can afford them, relying on the labor of marginalized transnational workers from the Global South (Katz 2003:256; Hochschild and Ehrenreich 2003). While affluent consumers may actively choose private commodity choices (e.g., private nannies, personal chefs), it is important to note that privatized consumer choices lack the universality-principles of welfare states, and the end result is the large-scale privatization of social reproduction in the twenty-first century (Mitchell et al. 2003:17). Whole Foods Market represents a key corporate component of the privatization of social reproduction, offering choices like prepared meals, a one-stop shopping format offering conventional foods and organics/fair-trade, and the opportunity to “feel good about where you shop.” Theor Soc (2008) 37:229–270 247 politics more accurately (Johnston 2007). Juxtaposing the ideologies of citizenship and consumerism with empirical case-studies can help avoid empty polemics by shedding light on how ideological conflicts over consumerism and citizenship play out in concrete cases. The complexity of on-the-ground food politics compels us to abandon the search for ideologically “pure” agents of domination and resistance, and instead look for points of contradiction, change, and ideological struggle. Building on the discussion of consumerism and citizenship as ideal-types outlined above, the criteria suggested here (summarized in Table 1) are used to discuss the contradictions in Whole Foods Market’s framing of the citizen-consumer hybrid. I investigate how well this framing serves norms of consumerism and citizenship in three distinct domains of social life that have significant implications: culture, political economy, and political ecology. These three domains are borrowed from Katz’s (2003) analysis of the political and ideological implications of social reproductive work (pp. 258–259). In the table below, the rows present the three domains, and the columns of the table contrast consumerism with citizenship. The case study provides evidence for one particularly influential instantiation of the hybrid concept, allowing an assessment of how WFM’s framing of the concept balances consumerism and citizenship. At the level of culture, an ideology of consumerism emphasizes the maximization of individual choice and variety, whereas citizenship encourages the bracketing of self-interest and the restriction of choice in the interest of collective solutions to achieve social justice and ecological integrity – in other words, to reclaim and preserve the commons. At the level of political-economy, consumerism links consumption to enhanced social status, as well as the maximization of one’s own class status and well-being through consumption – a phenomenon observed from Veblen (1994) to Bourdieu (1984). Consumer markets are highly valued, since markets are seen as providing sovereign consumers with what they want and need, and offer an acceptable and desirable means to achieve social status and upward mobility. In contrast, an ideology of citizenship based on responsibility to a social and ecological commons advocates greater equality in needs provisioning so that life’s essentials, like food, do not simply go to those who can afford them. The regulative power of the market is restricted, and community-based values – such as solidarity with others, direct participation in the decisions and labors that affect one’s life and a sense of pleasure gained from re-enchantment with one’s lifeworld – are prioritized (Sousa Santos 1995:40–54; Mies and Bennholdt-Thomsen 1999:5). In the Table 1 Consumerism versus citizenship Culture Political economy Political ecology Consumerism: maximizing individual interest Citizenship: collective responsibilities to a social and ecological commons Prioritize individual choice and variety Consumer markets valued; social status through consumption Conservation through consumption Limiting individual choice and variety; collective solutions Equitable access and empowerment for all social classes; markets restricted Reduce consumption; re-evaluate wants and needs 248 Theor Soc (2008) 37:229–270 third realm of political ecology, consumerism supports the conservation of nature through consumption, buying more “green” products in substitution for regular products (e.g., environmentally friendly disposable diapers), or buying products and services that construct a personal communion with nature (e.g., rainforest jungle tours or rainforest themed breakfast cereal). In contrast, a commons-focused ideology of citizenship advances disengagement with consumerism and reduced consumption, drawing from the political-ecological insight that current consumption levels of affluent populations are unsustainable and draw from the commons of peripheral regions (Durning 1992; Zavestocki 2001). To be clear, the point of this ideal-type comparison is not to present the consumer and citizen as two different empirical subjects that exist in separate and isolated bodies. Instead, it is intended as a heuristic tool to elucidate how consumerism and citizenship represent two very different explanatory frameworks and normative ends – ends that are not easily reconciled in the citizen-consumer hybrid. In the next section, I document WFM’s framing process, analyzing how it adjudicates between these competing ideal-types, and looking for terminal points – contradictions within ethical consumer discourse that are glossed over discursively, but nonetheless seem irresolvable, or at least deeply troubled, within the hybrid concept of the citizenconsumer. Case study: How WFM frames the citizen consumer hybrid Real Food. Amazing Flavors. Fantastically Fun. –Whole Foods Market Pamphlet (WFM 2007a) To investigate the viability of the citizen-consumer in ethical consumer discourse, in this section I examine WFM’s framing of citizen-consumers to specify and illustrate what kind of contradictions exist in this hybrid concept. Before proceeding, it is worth noting that WFM depicts the corporation itself as an ethical actor, and its shopping spaces represent an opportunity to observe the citizen-consumer concept put into practice. WFM stores project an image of a feel-good business engaged with the local community, protecting the environment, distributing the food of local farmers, promoting employee well-being, and above all, servicing customers’ desire for delicious food they can feel good about. Indeed, WFM stores boast myriad displays about healthy living, organic agriculture, local farmers, and their place at the heart of WFM’s corporate activities. CEO and founder John Mackey describes WFM as building a “new business paradigm” that puts customers ahead of shareholders, raises the living standard of the world’s population, and has a “fundamental responsibility to create prosperity for society and the world” (CBS 2004). According to Mackey, doing business within this “new [ethical] business paradigm” is not just a livelihood, but “a holy calling” (CBS 2004), and he insists that the “brand of business” has gained an undeserved bad reputation globally given that “business and capitalism are helping increase prosperity throughout the world” Theor Soc (2008) 37:229–270 249 (Maravillosa 2006).26 WFM’s incredible growth rests partly upon the aggressive business acumen of Mackey, but its commercial success suggests a retail environment that resonates with consumers. WFM’s framing of ethical consumption clearly presents the corporation as an ethical actor, this article, however, has a more specific focus: how the WFM shopping experience frames shopping as an ethical activity, as per the citizenconsumer hybrid. The WFM declaration of interdependence declares its ambition to turn customers into “advocates for whole foods” (WFM 2004a). The stores offer a high degree of organic and natural products, and many of these products contain messages on their packaging about the ecological contradictions of mainstream agriculture and food production. These messages are often echoed by WFM promotional materials appearing throughout the store (a phenomenon that I explore in more detail below). The popular prepared food section, furthermore, offers more ethical takes on classic take-out items like organic rotisserie chickens and homemade soups. Other promotional materials designed by WFM emphasize the absence of products with artificial preservatives, colors, sweeteners, or flavors, the fact that 5% of after-tax profits are donated to charity, and that executive salaries are limited to 14 times those of frontline staff. WFM also promotes itself as an ethical work environment that is kind to “whole people,” thereby tying the shopping experience to labor justice. In short, the WFM retail space appears constructed to distinguish itself, its clientele, and its products from a culinary mainstream marked by fast-food and generic mass-market foods associated with ill-health, poverty, obesity. This is reiterated by the WFM website: [m]any customers have shunned the burger joints and corporate cafeterias for the tasty and more healthful fare of dishes such as enlightened fried rice, earthy quinoa and couscous salads, and tangy sesame-crusted salmon. It's not fast food; it’s good food that customers can pick up quickly. (WFM 2000b). Most significantly, the WFM retail experience suggests that the citizen-consumer goals of pleasurable and ethical shopping are accessible and never in contradiction. WFM offers delicious and highly varied food choices, while employing the “feelgood and do-good” message on everything from food packaging to in-store signage to paper napkins. By combining these messages with an extensive range of prepared 26 To be clear, CEO John Mackey speaks plainly to the business press about the company’s aggressive growth strategies, which he presents as complementary with an ethical orientation: “[t]here’s this notion that you can’t be touchy-feely and serious. ... We don’t fit the stereotypes.” (Fishman 1996:103). Indeed, WFM is deeply competitive internally and externally. Top-down corporate hierarchies are supplemented with self-managed “teams” where team members are voted in (or out) of full-time jobs by other team members after a 30 day trial period. Stores, and the self-managed “teams” within stores (e.g., produce, bakery), compete to achieve the best performance targets in service, sales, and profitability. Productivity and company bonuses are closely tracked, and directly tied to team’s competitive performance (Fishman 1996). As CEO John Mackey explains, “peer pressure substitutes for bureaucracy” (as in Fishman 1996). Externally, competition is also the name of the game in the WFM business paradigm. WFM has absorbed smaller and competing stores in its path to becoming the largest natural foods chain in the world, and has been criticized for opening stores in close proximity to established natural food stores. 250 Theor Soc (2008) 37:229–270 and beautifully presented foods, WFM implies that one can shop “responsibly” at the store without sacrificing taste or convenience. This way of framing the shopping experience to maximize consumer pleasure and alleviate the guilt of mass-market consumerism obscures the contradictions of ethical consumption. In the 1960s, the counter-cuisine was openly tormented by multiple contradictions (e.g., Can homemade raspberry jam be made with imported white sugar? Should food coops sell white bread for working class customers? [Belasco 1989:79]). In sharp contrast, WFM frames ethical consumption as a seamless shopping experience where hybrid citizen-consumers can express ethical concerns by eating delicious prepared foods and beautifully-displayed produce in a fun shopping environment. To interrogate this palatable framing of ethical consumption, I employ an analytic framework that investigates contradictions at three levels of social reproduction – culture, politicaleconomy, and political-ecology – and suggest three corresponding ideological contradictions in WFM’s framing of ethical consumption. Culture: maximum consumer choice with minimum citizenship responsibilities Whole Foods thinks shopping should be fun. With this [80,000 square foot flagship] store we’re pioneering a new lifestyle that synthesizes health and pleasure. We don’t see a contradiction. −Whole Foods CEO John Mackey (Matson 2005). How does WFM present the importance and significance of choice for the citizenconsumer hybrid? In this section, I present evidence to develop my argument that the focus on the maximization of consumer choice at WFM is in contradiction with the requirements of citizenship to relinquish some control over consumer choice for the sake of the commons. Although citizenship does not require eliminating consumer choice, it does require that consumer choice is de-centered as the paramount, guiding value. Offering consumers as many options as possible is a key business strategy for WFM. The company provides an astonishing variety of foods in large, well-stocked stores; not only are most WFMs larger than most natural food stores, but some are almost twice as large as an average grocery store.27 WFM offers consumers foods touted as beneficial for the environment, safe for wildlife, or made under fair labor conditions, but, significantly, it also stocks “conventional” products where special concern for sustainability, workers’ rights, or social justice is not apparent. Product choices are vast, despite the fact that WFM promises to stock only natural, high quality ingredients. One research trip to Whole Foods documents 25 different 27 WFM has traditionally built stores in the 31,000 square foot range, but is planning to build 58 new stores in the 50,000 square foot range. The flagship Austin store is 80,000 square feet; the industry average for a grocery store is 34,000 square feet (Matson 2005). Theor Soc (2008) 37:229–270 251 varieties of natural macaroni and cheese, 129 varieties of boxed cereal, 147 different kinds of chips, puffs, popcorn, and nachos, and 72 different kinds of bottled water (that takes up an entire aisle in the store). WFM also sells ready-to-freeze spring water ice cubes in plastic, and on more recent trips I notice the new health item – the plastic-free Sigg bottle imported from Switzerland. The produce section is similarly impressive in its variety, and features a range of exotic items like pomellos and mangosteens from Thailand, tamarillo and granadillia from Colombia, and ugli fruit from Jamaica. Snippets of conversation overheard while browsing the aisles included phrases like, I can’t believe what they have here – it’s amazing.” “I don’t even know where to start....” The online cheese selector features an amazing volume of choices: 32 soft cheeses, 10 blue-veined cheeses, 10 grating cheeses, 36 firm cheeses, 74 semi-firm cheeses, and 14 fresh cheeses (WFM 2007c). What does this abundance of choice imply for the balance between consumerism and citizenship? WFM extols choice as integral to a cultural style where consumerism and citizenship are seamlessly integrated, but if we follow up on the implications of maximal choice, we see that it puts consumer and citizenship ideals out of balance. A heavy reliance on consumerism’s key tenet of choice makes for a starkly limited space to encourage the responsibilities and to develop the knowledge of citizenship. It is not that consumers can never exercise the responsibilities of citizenship at WFM, but rather, the extensive range of consumer choice is the dominant theme of the WFM experience. How does WFM’s framing of the citizen-consumer achieve this appearance of balance, and in what ways does WFM’s emphasis on choice undermine the balance between consumer and citizenship ideals? The first source of the imbalance is the fact that consumer choice renders citizenship responsibilities voluntary, understanding citizenship broadly as a system of individual rights and responsibilities to a civil and natural commons. Unlike citizens, who have a range of compulsory responsibilities to multi-scaled political collectivities (e.g., they pay taxes, obey laws, manage natural resources), consumer beneficence is primarily individualistic and voluntary since consumers have the option of taking their “vote” elsewhere.28 Even within the well stocked shelves of WFM, consumers can opt out of citizenship commitments to marginalized populations and ecologies, and prioritize individual self-interest by purchasing cheaper, unsustainable foods that may be industrially produced, out of season, conveniently packaged, or produced using exploited labor. At the same time that WFM consumers purchase these products, they shop in an environment that frames WFM consumers as ethical, healthy, and environmentally conscientious – even though the consumer might end up at the check-out with imported Chilean 28 Not all aspects of citizenship are obligatory since many aspects of political capital and civil society depend on voluntary citizenry efforts; however, the central economic and security/regulatory aspects of the citizen/state nexus depend on compulsory measures that allow governments to reflect the will of the people, and perform services essential to welfare states. While consumerism does mandate some compulsory responsibilities – e.g., the payment of debt – (see Jubas 2007: 241–2), it is primarily defined by individual rights, rather than by its collective obligations, particularly as it occurs in “impersonal markets where ... consumers can make choices unburdened by guilt or social obligations” (Gabriel and Lang 1995:173). 252 Theor Soc (2008) 37:229–270 raspberries, a heavily processed and packaged “organic” meal imported from thousands of miles away,29 and a box of General Mills Cereal.30 An emphasis on consumer choice creates an ideological imbalance in a second way. Although WFM sometimes frames consumer choice as a way to meet obligations toward the environment, it more frequently frames consumer choice as a way to meet obligations to the self. WFM frames consumer choice as a potent civicminded action, even if the action is oriented towards one’s individual health rather than ecological sustainability or social justice.31 Evidence for this focus is found in in-store pamphlets under the provocative banner, “Take Action!” These in-store pamphlet stands typically include two or three pamphlets on topics like food irradiation and genetic engineering, and a few conclude with the injunctive to contact political representatives to express your concerns about the safety of GE food and irradiation. These are important examples of framing that encourage consumers to behave as citizens, but in general, they are exceptions to the rule. The vast majority of the pamphlets in the “Take Action” section relate to taking action on personal health issues, and include such titles as “A Natural Primer for the Carb Conscious,” “Sugar Conscious,” and “Handling Seafood Safely.” Similarly, the seminars available at the WFM store-kitchens are focused on health and culinary topics, rather than political issues identified by food activists across North America, like food insecurity, corporate concentration in the food system, fast-food advertising to children, or shortening food miles. Sessions at the Portland, Oregon WFM (July 2005) are typical; they included “Cakes and Decorating,” “Gourmet Picnics,” “Sushi 101,” and “Belgian Ale Appreciation.” In general, the value of consumer choice tends to manifest as a powerful way of meeting obligations, but these are mainly obligations to the self rather than citizenship ideals involving collective action to protect the ecological and social commons. 29 In debates over organic standards in the United States, various decisions have favored the entry of large corporations into the organics sector, such as the allowance of factory-farming, food additives, and synthetic chemicals that opened the door to synthetic processed organic foods. Organic processed foods may be free from pesticides and be grown without fertilizers, but the energy used to construct processed foods make them highly problematic on environmental grounds. On average, the food processing industry in the USA uses ten calories of fossil fuel energy to produce one calorie of food energy (Manning 2004:44). However, the political-economic motivation for retailers to promote highly processed foods is strong, since they have more “valued added” and higher profit rates than less processed foods (e.g., eggs, milk, flour), and are found to be featured more prominently in retail displays (Winson 2004). 30 It is worth noting that the role of WFM as an ethical corporation is similarly voluntary; it can choose to support greater animal welfare in its operations, while it simultaneously quashes unionization efforts, refuses to join labor campaigns organized to guarantee labor rights for strawberry pickers, and markets a wide-range of energy-intensive processed foods. WFM’s anti-union policies and strategies are well documented, and linked to Mackey’s libertarian political-economic philosophy. In Mackey’s own words: “basically, labour unions don’t create value.... Fundamentally, they’re parasites. They feed on union dues” (Lubove 2005:42). Mackey wrote and circulated a 19-page position paper entitled, “Beyond Unions” that has been circulated to “team-members” since 1990. Numerous journalistic accounts have documented WFM’s systematic efforts to prevent unionization. In addition, CEO John Mackey, refused to sign a United Farm Workers union petition to guarantee the rights of strawberry pickers in 1998. According to Mackey, “The UFW is trying to coerce us because we won’t sign their damned petition....I’m damned if I’m going to sign....
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Your assignment is ready please feel free to consult where necessary. Thank-You. :-)If you make any inquiry and I don't respond immediately please hold on sometimes responses delay, but I got your back will assist you asap.😀

Running head: STATUS QUO IN THE WORKPLACE

Status Quo In the Workplace
Institutional Affiliation
Date

1

2

STATUS QUO IN THE WORKPLACE
I don’t agree with Adam Kahane's statement that there is no way to change the status quo
without discomforting those comfortable with the status quo. This comes especially in the
context of the workpl...


Anonymous
Just the thing I needed, saved me a lot of time.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags