Selling values

I’ve been reading WWF’s Common Cause report and the various responses to it this week (particularly Chris Rose and George Monbiot) and trying to wrap my brain around the litany of issues that this whole thing has stirred up.

So. Where to begin? In a nutshell, the report states that globally, we have a pile of pressing issues that people in the Western world view as ‘bigger than self’ and are extremely reluctant to act upon. One of the reasons for this, the report states, is that marketing and the media have cultivated a consumerist, introspective, self interested society based on selfish, extrinsic values (remember those frequent attacks on marketing I was talking about?). Here’s where it starts to get a bit technical…

The circumplex model of values (the graph shown below- taken from Common Cause) demonstrates that some common held values are very close to one another and can be held concurrently while others are oppositional.
Financial success, popularity, image and to an extent hedonism and conformity (extrinsic values) are in opposition to spirituality and community (intrinsic values). This is not to say that individuals cannot have both intrinsic and extrinsic values, merely that they place more importance on one or the other.

So, even though people can hold opposing values simultaneously, extrinsic values and a focus on the self rather than the community dominate in this society. People have thresholds of how much they are willing to sacrifice in terms of their way of life (comfort, status, convenience, image) to express the values they hold.

It reminds me of the two old dears who used to work at my local post office, I wish I could remember their names, but let’s call them Poppy and Rose. I overheard a conversation between them once that ran something along these lines;

Rose: That thing about the polar bears on telly last night was awful.

Poppy: I know, all that global warming. Shocking.

Rose: Of course, we’ve been recycling for years. And using them energy lightbulbs.

Poppy: Oh yes. Us too.

Rose: We put it all in. Newspapers. The lot.

Poppy: Us too… Except for the tins. They can’t expect us to be rinsing out cat food tins. It’s a filthy job and I’m not going to do it.

Rose: And you shouldn’t have to, dear.

So, Poppy and Rose like polar bears. They have recognised the link between the fluffy white things plight and global warming and have gone so far as to take action- they use energy saving lightbulbs and recycle for the greater good. But why won’t Poppy rinse out the cat food tins? Because she doesn’t want to get her hands dirty- it’s too much of an inconvenience.

In light of these attitudes, Common Cause advise that resistance to action against global issues can only be overcome through engagement with cultural values. At the same time, the mere ‘promotion of green consumerism’ will only encourage further cultivation of extrinsic values (buy things to make problems go away).

While I agree fundamentally that societal values need to change before ‘bigger than self’ issues can be fully addressed (Poppy needs to be convinced that not only is it acceptable for her to get her hands dirty, but that she wants to) I think green consumerism is too easily discredited here.

The promotion (by marketers!) of green products (for consumption!) has surely been a catalyst for pushing green issues into the spotlight and the public consciousness. Fair Trade products have raised awareness of the Fair Trade movement. Energy saving lightbulbs have raised awareness of energy conservation. Hybrid vehicles have drawn peoples attention to our reliance on fossil fuels.
Sure, we’re smart enough to realise that simply ‘buying things’ won’t change the world or make these problems go away, but buying better, more energy efficient, sustainable, ecologically and environmentally aware products is a very good place to start… Right?