Is American an Addict?
Robert Chatham

          There is a malady that affects nearly one hundred percent of the United States’ citizens. This disease holds us in its grasp during most of our waking hours, encouraging us to gorge ourselves on products that we do not need and often do not really want. Give it any euphemism you want, be it “stimulating the economy” or “living the American Dream.” The disease’s name is consumption, and it is an addiction that we carry with us as early as the day we watch our first television show.

Consumption is a maladaptive behavior. We’re trained at an early age to desire and enjoy the process of buying. We obtain figurative (and, in some cases, literal) “highs” from making impulse purchases, using coupons, finding bargains, and buying our old favorites. When we are stressed, we can purchase a new dessert or a new movie to help deal with it. When we are happy, we might celebrate with dinner at a restaurant or by getting an expensive item that we’ve had our eye on. Even relaxation time is fair game for the consuming addiction - there’s a whole industry dedicated to getting people to buy overpriced products (read: souvenirs) during their vacations. This is no different from alcoholics who answer all problems and welcome all celebrations with a drink.

How can we determine whether or not America is addicted to consumption? We can tell if a substance is addictive if the product or activity causes a loss of control, a tolerance to the activity, a physical or psychological withdrawal when the item or activity is removed, and any dysfunction in normal life.

The American people most definitely show a loss of control in their desire to consume. While there are a rare few who buy only what they need, those with sufficient funds splurge nearly every time they go to the store – buying name-brand products rather than store-brand even if the two are indistinguishable, purchasing worthless knick-knacks to clutter the home, and trying various items based solely on an appealing television commercial. Few people have budget limits or, if they have them, stick to the limits. Credit cards allow us to purchase items if we do not have sufficient funds, so even the barrier of limited moneys has been broken, allowing American consumption to go rampant.

There is also a tolerance to consumption. As children, we might have been content to buy a single

action figure or an assortment of candy. As adults with an increased income, the wallet is the limit. The larger the amount of available spending money, the more we splurge – “impulse” items, junk food, larger vehicles, upscale electronic entertainment. Once we have a larger-screen television, there’s no way our next model will be smaller. The American view is that bigger is better, and the older we get, the bigger our purchases have to be to satisfy us.

Can you imagine the effects of withdrawal on the American population if we were to limit consumption? Not even eliminate – just limit. What if someone were to tell you that you could spend the same amount of money every month, but you could only spend a limited amount on luxury items? Sticking to an imposed budget might seem to be an easy proposition – but that might mean only buying what’s on a grocery list, never impulse buying at malls, and avoiding garage sales. Many thrifty Americans might find it relatively easy to adapt to limited consumption, but I’m guessing that the average Joe would have real problems coming to grips with the limited budget. For a period of time, he’d go through a period of withdrawal, in which he’d be unable (or unwilling) to deal with the imposed budget.

Finally, we come to dysfunction. Have our lives become dysfunctional because of our strong desire to purchase services we don’t need, entertainment systems that don’t entertain us, and food that poisons our bodies? Most definitely. According to state Public Interest Research Groups at http://www.truthaboutcredit.org/roadmap.html, the average credit card user had a debt in 2000 of $5600. High interest rates on credit cards keep many from ever fully paying off their credit card bills, holding many Americans in a state of interminable debt. Boundless debt is as detrimental to the life of a credit card user as it is to a compulsive gambler.

Symbolic Interactionists, Functionalists, Post-Modernists, and Conflict Theorists would all have different views on the positive and negative aspects of the addiction to consumption.

Symbolic Interactionists might have the most to say about the reasons why Americans shop, but their interpretations would have little bearing on the subject of the paper. However, I believe that they’d say that the symbolism behind buying is the act of obtaining something new. That is, the act of buying is more satisfying than the actual item purchased.

A Functionalist would say that the consumption benefits society, since the benefits to the stores and creditors is greater than the consumers’ debt. While stores and manufacturers directly receive the money that consumers pay for products, creditors indirectly benefit from consumer-addiction. Rather than receiving revenues for products, they provide the revenue for consumers’ purchases and collect on the interest. In addition, consumers benefit in a small way. When more money flows into the hands of the corporations who create the products, the corporations are encouraged to produce diversified products. The consumers are encouraged to maximize their pleasure by choosing from the varied product, and thus, the “invisible hand” moves the market. In essence, consuming makes life better for everyone in some small way.

A Post-Modernist would stretch the idea further: since corporations are (arguably) the most powerful entities in the United States, a powerful economy means a powerful country. A corporation uses the addiction to consumption to benefit itself and, thus, benefit the United States (since the power and money bestowed to the corporation by the people is often used to sway and manipulate the government), while the corporation benefits and exploits other countries at will – for instance, paying foreign workers a pittance in exchange for work. By looking at the overall picture, we can see how consumer addiction boosts the United States while making other countries dependant on our own mega-corporations.

Finally, the Conflict Theorist would nod his head and point to the discussion in the previous two paragraphs. Consumer addiction benefits corporations and creditors to the detriment of the consumers and foreigners. Our training to accept consumerism is the ultimate in keeping the Haves (that is, the selling corporations and the lending creditors) above the Have-Nots (the consumers and the easily-exploited workers) under the guise of benefiting the very ones that are being abused.

Is America an addict? I believe so. We are compelled to purchase, enjoying the process of buying, or the delivery system, more than the product itself. Advertisements, movies, and other popular media teach us that it’s not only fun to buy – it’s a way to strengthen the economy. Instead of directly reaping the awards of consumption, our purchases fuel the rich and powerful, unequally distributing wealth among the rich while taking it away from those with less money – mainly, ourselves.

Is it wrong to purchase luxury items? Absolutely not. Consumption is like alcoholism – it’s often okay to perform the addictive action under strict conditions, but the problem lies when we lose control of spending. In fact, I believe that most Americans aren’t even aware of our addiction. The solution to ending consumer debt is to create a modest budget and to control the amount of money used for extraneous purchases. It’s not as easy as it sounds. Society smiles at consumer overindulgence, which means that the addiction will be ignored and consumers will be encouraged to spend. As long as the rich are becoming richer by exploiting the trained consumers, Americans will continue to be addicted to consumption.