This is a question I’ve been thinking about for a while, and that has caused me some pretty rough times – but they were important to go through, and I think it’s an important question to ask, so I want to share where I’m at with it.
For me, the first thing we have to talk about is what it means to be evil. In this day and age, we’ve hyped up the concept of evil to a massive degree, such that it’s become something that only the most depraved can be accused of. Raoul Moat probably fits the bill.
But as a few lonely voices have pointed out over the years, this is a pretty massive mistake to make. As soon as you make evil a term that only be ascribed to the most truly demented, you make it far more likely that evil will become far more pervasive.
Let me introduce Albert, a man who died just a decade or so ago. As a young man, Albert was by all accounts a thoroughly nice, normal bloke. He was clever and personable, he had a lovely wife and children, and he was very good at his job. And to him, as he said explicitly on several occasions, to be good at his job was the full extent of his moral responsibility. He didn’t think of himself as a political being, and he said so regularly. He just wanted to be good, and do his bit.
But he wasn’t good. He was evil. Because he was Albert Speer, and the job which he was so good at was Hitler’s chief architect . (At this point, I must apologise to everyone for making Conservation Economy fall foul of Godwin’s Law of Nazi Analogies…)
The philosopher Mark Rowlands, in his fantastic book The Philosopher and The Wolf, helps us formulate what evil really is in a way that can cope with people like Speer. He describes evil as a failing of Moral Duty, which is the objective duty to stand up for those who cannot stand up for themselves; and Epistemic Duty, which is the duty to hold up your actions against the values you hold.
So according to Rowlands, we have a duty to identify our values, to question whether our actions fit with them, and to act differently if they don’t. Otherwise we are being evil.
Consumerism, I propose, is inherently evil, because it systematically undermines both Moral and Epistemic Duty. It is a social system which is based on narrow self-interest, and it is a social system which tells us to purchase, not to think.
To work in advertising is to promote Consumerism, and is, on this basis, evil more often than not. To work in advertising, you must either believe in Consumerism and fail in your Moral Duty; or not hold up your actions to your beliefs and fail in your Epistemic Duty. Either way, you are being evil. It’s just that the former makes you more like Hitler, and the latter more like Albert Speer. And when I realised that, I spent two weeks throwing up on Oxford Circus tube station every morning.
This definition of evil of course means we are all evil on a regular basis in today’s world, and not just in advertising. But I would rather accept that and start to face the changes we have to make than the alternative, waiting until we all end up looking at each other one day and wondering whose fault it all was.
Two things to remember then. First, if it doesn’t feel good, do something different. Second, just because you’re doing a good job doesn’t make you good.
{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }
Situations change, and information comes to light, to make us aware that the context now is different to how we had thought it was previously. My father-in-law’s a geologist. In his glory days he was hired to find gold abroad. Now, in his retiring years, he prospects for coal deposits, which once mined will feed our propensity / dependency to burn fossils for fuel. He wasn’t evil 30 years ago, and he still isn’t today. (Hideously charged language by the way, isn’t it?!) Similarly, advertising isn’t evil per se but needs to rapidly and pragmatically get a grip on the wider context it’s now evident it’s operating in, and relearn how to apply what it does best – inspire us to change our behaviour – to help offer symbols of positive change, and be part of solutions not the problem.
Enjoying this… have to admit I was being a little bit deliberately provocative with this one, although I do genuinely think there’s some powerful truth in here which we need to face up to.
Now, the geologist. Why isn’t your father-in-law evil? I think he might be. Why is it any different from Albert Speer, given he knew full well what his designs were being used for, continuing to do them anyway? Is the defence that if he didn’t do it, someone else would? Does that stack up? I’m not trying to isolate your father-in-law as a uniquely evil person, but it does seem to me that he’s good proof of my point, that we are all far more evil far more often than we’d like to think… and that even people who clearly do things they know at some level they shouldn’t are lauded in our society.
As for hideously charged language – yes, evil is a powerful word with a lot of meaning. But so is ‘good’, and you guys seem perfectly happy to use that? Again, not meant to be a unique criticism – but I’d argue the word ‘good’ is overused and taken for granted in a way that actually sheds quite a lot of light on how we’ve repressed the concept of ‘evil’.
I would also question that what advertising does best is inspire us to change our behaviour. I think advertising inspires us to be increasingly narrowly self-interested, as per another post that you and I are discussing(!), and to adopt behaviours in line with this… What we need in order to achieve change is less advertising, not advertising directed slightly differently.
All that said, I think I do agree that there’s a valid point about context here. But I think that’s consistent with the idea of Epistemic Duty. Once a piece of context becomes apparent, it becomes part of Epistemic Duty to think through how this new context affects what you do – and indeed, it is arguably part of Epistemic Duty to question and discover what the context may be. Mark Rowlands would argue, and I would tend to agree, that it is the fact that Epistemic Duty is no longer really considered a duty that lies at the root of most of our problems…
Thanks for that Jon
Academically yes we’re all evil and epistemologically yes we fail to activate what we learn in what we do, or assume as our duty
In the real world though..
Can advertising inspire us to change our behaviour? Yes (have examples if you need them)
Within given categories, can some branded product choices deliver better global outcomes than others? Yes (ditto)
Can some product choices even – dare I say it – deliver net neutral if not net positive outcomes (if we’re to attempt to balance social environmental and economic value creation)? Yes (ditto)
For the sake of promoting positive signs of change and opportunity to people trying to find practical routes towards a better future – rather than sinking in a moralistic mire or the depths of defeat – is it ok to identify those opportunities and efforts as ‘good’ – yes we think so
Hi Jon, loving this post. Few thoughts…
1. I agree with your point that “good” is overused, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the solution is to increase the frequency with which we use the word “evil”, and the number of actions we attach it to. I think the solution is to more closely interrogate what we consider to be good, as you point out.
2. Advertising does inspire us to change behaviour. But it doesn’t force us to change behaviour – it requires a response. So what do we call those that force behaviour change upon others, those that do not wait for a response – “really evil”? I worry that overuse of the term diminishes its power.
3. I’m don’t really agree with Mark Rowlands’ definition of evil, although i’m not quite sure what definition i prefer, so i’ll need to have a think about that.
Great, provovative post that’s got me thinking. Cheers.
Call me a liberal hippy but I don’t think anyone is really evil. Just misguided. I think people can be REALLY misguided to the point where they look evil in normal circumstances. I think they become misguided by upbringing and environmental factors.
I don’t think people who work in advertising are evil, just misguided. They don’t know any better. When we do start to ‘know’ better, it all gets a bit confusing. Within the whole ecology of consumerism we can’t just pick on advertising. What about the millions or client side marketing housewives, who’s life revolves around selling; a soft drink, a toilet roll brand, a plastic toothbrush, a… They’re not evil either. Just misguided. We all are.
Sorry, been out of link for a few days…
MJ, first up, I think I’m increasingly with you – as I say, I was and am being a little bit deliberately provocative. I also wouldn’t like to claim with absolute certainty that I’ve completely got Mark Rowlands’ work on evil down… but I’d heartily recommend the Philosopher and the Wolf if you’re interested, and would be keen to debate further. I think you identify the key point, though, which is that we have a duty to be more careful how we use the word ‘good’.
Which brings me neatly on to Peter… and yes, we do have to live in the real world, but I think there’s some important points to make here, and we risk perpetuating the errors of the past by dismissing any kind of deeper questioning as either “a moralistic mire or the depths of defeat” (much as I appreciate your use of alliteration!). To me, a better analogy is that you have to be prepared to dig deeper to find the root of the problem – otherwise we risk hacking at the branches while the problem just sprouts new ones.
Specifically yes, advertising can inspire behaviour change (I was a planner for 7 years) – but what kind of behaviour change? I would say that even on examples like drink-driving, it’s only really proven to change consumer behaviour; that is, behaviour within the frame of narrow self-interest. Simply because of what advertising is, this is the only way it can talk to us. And all the while these are the only changes we’re activating, we’re only going to get incremental shift, when what we need is step change.
I’m not saying that the kinds of things you guys and others work on aren’t BETTER; indeed, I’m a huge fan of a lot of your work, within frame. My problem is that these kinds of changes simply aren’t going to lead to the levels of shift that we need; and that pretending that they are is creating a sop to the masses. All the while we maintain the myth that Green Consumerism is a solution, we make going beyond Consumerism less likely. That’s why I disagree with your last point: I don’t think it is ok to identify those opportunities and efforts as GOOD. Good is absolute. They are not good; if they were, they would be part of the solution, not an incremental step in the general direction of a solution. BETTER, maybe. GOOD, no.
What we need to be doing is activating other elements of human motivation than narrow self-interest. Check out Jeremy Rifkin’s stuff on the Empathic Civilisation, for example (good 10 minute film on the RSA youtube channel). We need to build a base for action on the base of a broader conception of self. Advertising is not well placed to do this, because most people who work in advertising believe, as per your response to another post, that narrow self-interest is a fact of life. As such, advertising continually reinforces a culture where primary responsibility is to myself (narrowly defined). But this is not a fact of life, and it is not human nature.
We need to think bigger, and not be happy just to come up with something incrementally better than what we’ve got now. Anything less than that is, as I say, hacking at the branches while the root continues to thrive.
Thanks Jon. There’s no getting past the theoretical the abstract and the academic with you, so as much as I enjoy joining in these posts Jon, I’m out.
Suffice it to say I think that consumerism need not and one day will not mean destruction (check out Chiquita – for me a model for creative consumption), that self-interest can promote community interest even if it’s self-interested, and that if ‘better’ is as good as we can go after right now, it’s better than nothing.
I think we’ve got to work with what we’ve got, but I totally agree with you: it’s all moving too slow to make any impact right now.
But I’m an optimist and I’m hanging on in there for the golden age when brands compete for credibility in this space. It might not be that far off, and it WILL be exciting.
The flaw in the logic comes when we realize that yes, by definition we are all fundamentally evil, and because that belief is incompatible with the innate belief that our own existence is, if not justified, then at least justifiable, then we we have to back pedal and redefine what evil is so that these contradictory ideas can co exist.
On a sliding scale advertising, fossil fuel procurement, fascist architecture are all higher order evils, but the basic consumption and reproduction which humans are currently capable of is sufficient to destroy this planet and everything on it. That’s pretty evil.
The only positive action you can take is to kill yourself and everyone you know… but you won’t do it, because you are evil.
Hi Jon…
Firstly, thanks for being ‘academic’ and not pragmatic. Seriously.
‘Pragmatic’ thinking might be easier and more quickly achieved, but I’m pretty sure that’s already in hand, and what is needed (as with all things) is some unreasonable ambition to push and challenge our thinking and action further, whether the ‘ideal’ is ever reached or not.
My favourite sentance was, “advertising continually reinforces a culture where primary responsibility is to myself (narrowly defined). But this is not a fact of life, and it is not human nature.”
I share the same belief in human nature, and it’s why I believe consumerism (not consumption) is wrong.
But the worrying thing is while that maybe true for ‘base’ human nature (if you can split definitions of human nature?), I’m not sure that consumerism and the volume of advertising, amongst other things – dispersion of communities, decline of family units, internet encouraged self-sufficiency etc – haven’t changed ‘surface’ human nature into something more selfish?
And even more hypothetically, do the dual threats of increasing population/competition, and diminishing resources/climate change encourage increasingly selfish (inherently short-term) action on a more base level? And is this not a natural reaction to a species becoming conscious of it’s own mortality for the first time ever?
Hopefully not, but probably worth thinking about.
Truth is that I believe humans, as a species, will adapt to survive without taking any ‘backwards’ steps, and that’s why people feel like you’re being theoretical, pessimistic or obstructive. I believe fundamentally that consumerism and technology etc… can be the driving force for pro-longed life, whether ‘tweaked’ by green influences or not.
But is it life I’d want to prolong? No. Would it lead to a world I’d want to live in? No. While these things can perpetuate the existence of humans and the world, they cannot perpetuate the natural world.
That’s what I think environmentalism is about. There’s lots of people who want the world to survive for future generations, and they rightly believe that consumerism, business and technology can do that. But it will be at the cost of ‘nature’, which they don’t care about as they’ve lost touch with it.
Incidentally, just about every sci-fi imagining of the future backs this up – virtual reality? Tick. Lazers? Tick. Robots? Tick etc… So does that mean people can’t imagine a future with nature? And if they can’t, is it because environmentalism is a form of luddite-ism? Or is it because sci-fi writers are just geeks who are more detatched from nature than most? And where does Avatar sit in al this? Perhaps a debate about the role (or lack) of creative story-telling and environmentalism is for another time.
Anyway, why I like Nature Defecit Disorder so much is because it’s a way to get people to appreciate ‘nature’ again, and to consider it’s role in any world we want to survive. That’s why I think I disagree with the Trojan Horse thing…
————- “In my head, it’s a Trojan horse thing. Brands can serve their own short-term purposes better by doing this now, so they win. Of course, in the long run, they’ll screw themselves over by making the next generation less Consumerist and so less in need of them. But there’s two ways of looking at that – one is that brands are businesses, staffed by us the people, and we’ll go with it because we all intuitively know we need to get away from Consumerism even if we’re too tied into our mortgages to do anything about it today; the other is that brands aren’t exactly great at long-term thinking, and so probably won’t even notice.” —————
…here’s why:
Short-term (pragmatically), you’re right. But long-term, there is a third way. Brands will evolve to sell different products (aka unnecessary shit) you can use to enjoy the new ‘natural’ world you now appreciate e.g. different hiking boots for grass and gravel, energy drinks that are specifically made for kayaking, walking poles and off-road baby-harnesses so you and your child can enjoy rambling safely.
The danger is if you don’t tackle consumerism (i.e. buying more than you need x 10000000), then you just change the nature of supply/demand, not the volume. Five pairs of Patagonia boardies is still 4 more than one surfer needs.
And that’s why, in my humble, rambling opinion at least, i’d ask you to stay ‘academic’ and ‘theoretical’ to a fault.
Let’s catch up soon.
Ps: think i might have just defined (my) Environmentalism as a desire, not a need, and maybe that’s why other people struggle with it too – because deep down, they believe it’s unecessary (to survival); although preferable if someone can make it easy enough?
Leon – I fundamentally disagree. Your approach implies that human influence will always be destructive – ‘consumption and reproduction’ being the two core functions of humanity. That’s a dangerous fallacy, which might seem to be the case now (surface human nature, to use Mike’s language) but is not the underlying truth. Humans are unique animals not because we consume, but because we can form deeper, more co-creative relationships than any other creature. We have the unique capacity, should we choose to realise it, to work with the natural world to co-create future environments that work for everyone. We have the capacity to be ‘good’; the social system we have created for ourselves at present (i.e. Consumerism) just doesn’t leave much space to express it.
To put it more humbly, try using a composting toilet – you’ll soon realise that as a human being you can create something useful.
Sick theme for all people being reasonable, but maybe not?
M.S.Zuyko