The Golden Mean: Let's Look at Ethical Consumption

I have, in the previous articles, dealt with the existentialist approach to living freely and authentically, and furthermore touched upon the miscorrelation between authentic living and modern-life’s consumption patterns.

In this article, I will dive into what ethical consumption might enthrall. I will investigate the predominant irrationality that governs most present consumption patterns, and discuss an alternative way of consuming goods that isn’t characterized by exploitation and rapid replacement, but rather by pre-rational, deeply felt preferences and needs, which will lead to more sustainable behavior.

When one consumes irrationally and uninformed there is a great risk of becoming a part of the exploitation of nature — animals as well as the people involved in the production.

Uninformed consumption is connected to the Philistine way of life (as described in Kierkegaard’s philosophy) and to the sub-human’s mindless herd behavior (as defined by Simone de Beauvoir). But what is the alternative? What kind of consumption is linked to the Ethicist’s way of life? Or to that of the authentically passionate, free human being?

Sometimes if we try to change something — like hopeless, unsustainable societal patterns, limiting norms and assumptions, or unfortunate personal behavioral repetitions — the way we talk about things or the vocabulary we use can have great impact.

In relation to unsustainable consumption patterns, a good question to ask is: What if we stopped using the word consumption altogether, and started saying usage instead? What would that imply?

If you consume goods you are automatically implying that you go through them; that they will be obsolete or outdated sooner rather than later and you will be done with them. Synonyms for consumption are, besides eating and drinking: using up, ruining, misusing, wasting, and damaging. Antonyms, on the other hand, are growth, creation, building, constructing, and improving. By usage in common society, the word consumption is destructive, whereas its antonym contains invention and progression.

Reducing consumption radically is the only civil way of truly changing the unfortunate societal consumption patterns from which our planet is currently suffering, not recycling or reusing.

Refusing is of course also a way — but it seems a little too much like a nihilistic turn away from the world. Refusing isn’t necessary or realistic.

Radically reducing how much we consume is, however, both realistic and necessary. It is, what one, in line with the philosophy of Kierkegaard, could call the Ethicist way of consumption, even though it most certainly feels wrong to describe it as consumption. Let’s actually think of it as Ethicist long-term usage instead.

In order to radically reduce how much we buy, we must keep and sustain our physical belongings for much, much longer than what we have grown accustomed to doing, and we must be mindful of what we buy. We must focus on the usage and the value of things rather than on the momentary newness fix. Long-term usage involves mending, improving, repairing, and caring. It involves focusing on purpose and usability.

Kierkegaard’s Ethicist has overcome the nihilistic disillusioned withdrawal from society as well as the constant search for momentary unrestricted pleasure and mindless consumption that characterizes the Aesthetician way of life. The Ethicist dares to commit to other people, and to one’s physical surroundings, and as a part of this commitment a genuine connection to the community and environment is established. This connection creates harmony and stability in the life of the Ethicist and establishes the right balance between too much and too little. According to Kierkegaard, the genuine relationship with other people frees the individual from being indifferent and from feeling alienated.

Wedon’t need to totally withdraw from society and live our lives in an off-grid hut on the top of a mountain in order to live authentically, sustainably, and ethically. I sometimes feel like doing so, when the current immense environmental problems and the injustice and oppression become too much to stand. But withdrawal and nihilistically refusing to be engaged in anything or anyone is not the only way to cope with current world problems. It is the “ostrich-way” — so to speak — and it doesn’t solve anything; unless you build a community of likeminded individuals to start a movement of downshifting and degrowth with.

To highlight the point on not necessarily having to withdraw from society in order to live sustainably, a glance at ancient greek philosopher Aristotle’s theory on the “golden mean” is useful.

Aristotle is known for having said that you should behave in life as you would at a banquet; you should rise neither thirsty nor drunken. Living virtuously and authentically involves balancing between two extremes — between excess and deficiency. For example, the virtue of courage is a balancing act between recklessness and cowardice, and ambition between greed and sloth.

In line herewith, leaving society and going off-grid might be defined as deficiency, whereas over-consumption as excess. The sustainable golden mean does not involve refusing and rejecting everything and everyone apathetically. There is nothing wrong with drinking until you are no longer thirsty, nor is there anything wrong with being ambitious and engaged.

Aristotle’s golden mean is, however, not meant as a way to define a one-size-fits-all rule. The right way to act depends on the situation; at times anger is appropriate and at times indifference is.

And this notion transferred to leading a sustainable life reminds me very much of a set of principles that I have recently become acquainted and occupied with, namely the permaculture design principles.

Inpermaculture design one of the main viewpoints is that not all solutions fit all milieus. For example, it wouldn’t make sense to build a bamboo house in my home town Copenhagen, whereas in Bali (my second home) it makes perfect sense. First of all, the tall, dense bamboo, which is used for building doesn’t grow naturally in Denmark, so using this material would involve a lot of transportation; and second, bamboo is not suitable for a damp, cold environment like Scandinavia. It would rot and degenerate very quickly.

Permaculture principles for design involve finding a golden mean, a balance that allows for whatever you are creating to have permanence or durability.

In the light of the Kierkegaardian Ethicist’s way of life and the golden mean, usage rather than consumption makes good sense.

Repairing and mending one’s belongings might seem rather old-fashioned; we have become unaccustomed with doing so, due to the affordability and accessibility of new things, as well as the societal status that has been — and still to an extent is — connected to shopping and buying new things. But mending and long-term usage of things must be relaunched in our late-modern materialistic culture in order to turn around the unsustainable status quo, and in order to turn destructive, inexhaustible materialism into fruitful material-appreciation.

The increased detachment from materiality due to the fact that we spend the vast majority of our time in front of computer screens, tablets, and smart phones has given birth to a “hands-on”-tendency, which materializes in a rising need for everything from knitting and embroidery to gardening and cooking. So, why not start a movement of menders and repair-enthusiasts? Why not nurture this anti-trend? As previously mentioned, repair-cafes currently pop up in most larger cities accommo- dating the growing need for people to live more sustainably and to feel empowered to step out of the “hamster-wheel” of over-consumption. I believe that this tendency will grow and become more refined, encouraging people to cultivate their crafts skills in order to mend their belongings aesthetically.

…

Let’s connect! https://www.instagram.com/the_immaterialist/

—

This post was previously published on medium.com.

***