Reply to criticisms of marketing, the consumer society and hedonism

• Published in: European journal of marketing Vol. 41; no. 1/2; pp. 7 - 16
• Main Authors: O'Shaughnessy, John, Jackson O'Shaughnessy, Nicholas
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Bradford Emerald Group Publishing Limited 20.01.2007
• Subjects: Academic disciplines; Consumer behavior; Consumerism; Consumers; Consumption; Ethics; Hypotheses; Marketing; Materialism; Physiology; Self expression; Society; Studies; Values; Ethics; Consumerism; Marketing
• ISSN: 0309-0566; 1758-7123
• DOI: 10.1108/03090560710718076

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to reply to Andrew V. Abela's "Marketing and consumption: a response to O'Shaughnessy and O'Shaughnessy": European Journal of Marketing. The article challenges a number of alleged claims in their paper "Marketing, the consumer society and hedonism", and the authors' response seeks to present a systematic and, hopefully, intellectually coherent answer to Abela's critique.Design methodology approach - The paper proceeds via discussion, argument and conceptual analysis. The three key areas of critique, which focus on the notion that these authors are somehow desensitized to the ethical significance of materialism and marketing's role in its causation, are examined in succession.Findings - There can be no finality in this discussion, only further debate; nevertheless we believe we substantiate our claim that marketing alone does not "cause" materialism but that it is an inalienable fact of human nature. The first claim attributed to us was that the harms of materialism had not been demonstrated empirically. This misrepresents what we said and nowhere in the paper did we make such a claim. The second alleged claim is that we said it is unlikely that marketing causes materialism. Much here depends on how Abela is interpreting cause, since we do not deny marketing contributes by facilitating materialism but reject the idea that it is a necessary or sufficient condition for materialism. The third claim is that we see no alternatives to the current system that are consistent with human freedom. This paper acknowledges this charge, but questions whether strong consumer materialism is a major problem and maintains in any case that the alternative suggested by Abela is neither feasible nor viable.Research implications limitations - This stands as part of the larger fields of marketing ethics, macromarketing and, more broadly, the "politics of consumption" (which would include such areas as globalisation); the merit demerit of marketing as a transformative social force, and whether it is materialising peoples and cultures, is high on any future marketing research agenda. This article contributes to that debate.Practical implications - If the ills of society are successfully attributed to the agency of marketing - and "materialism" is a convenient shorthand for these ills - then we invite legislative and other forms of retribution. It is important therefore that alternative perspectives get a hearing.Originality value - This topic is ultimately about the ethical status - and by extension social value - of marketing itself. By rigorous conceptual analysis and theoretic and literary support, these authors create a credible, though by no means uncritical, alibi for marketing.