The Theoretical Landscape of Western Consumer Culture Theory

Consumer culture theory is an important component of Western Marxist social critique theory and also one of the significant theoretical resources for the contemporary development of Marxism. Clarifying the theoretical lineage of Western Marxist research on consumer culture and delineating the theoretical landscape of this research can help promote the contemporary development of Marxist consumer culture theory, and further aid in reflecting on and critiquing practical issues in the contemporary consumption sphere, guiding the construction of a consumption civilization in the New Era.

消费文化理论是西方马克思主义社会批判理论的重要组成部分，也是马克思主义在当代发展的重要理论资源之一。厘清西方马克思主义消费文化研究的理论脉络，描绘这一研究的理论图景，有助于推动马克思主义消费文化理论的当代发展，更有助于反思和批判当代消费领域的实践问题，引领新时代消费文明的建构。

The emergence of Western Marxist consumer culture theory has a profound theoretical foundation. First, the most important theoretical perspective and the most direct theoretical basis originate from Marx and Engels. The theories of ideology and alienation proposed by Marx and Engels became the theoretical support points for the critique of consumer culture, while Marx's concept of commodity fetishism and his discussion of the importance of consumption provided a perspective for the critique of consumer culture. Second, Lukács's theory of "reification" and Gramsci's theory of cultural hegemony opened up new horizons for cultural critique. At the same time, as Western society gradually entered the consumer society, Keynesianism in economics gradually replaced the Protestant ethic, capital accumulation shifted to capital expansion, consumption became the main driving force for capital development, and the alienation of production gradually extended to the sphere of consumption. These new changes in the social life of capitalist society continuously drove the deepening of cultural critique theory, guiding the focus of critical theory from the sphere of production to the sphere of consumption, and shifting the critical direction from a historical macro-perspective to the perspective of everyday life. Western Marxist research on consumer culture presents diverse theoretical approaches.

西方马克思主义消费文化理论的产生具有深厚的理论基础。首先，最重要的理论视角和最直接的理论基点来源于马克思恩格斯。马克思恩格斯提出的意识形态理论和异化理论成为消费文化批判的理论支撑点，而马克思商品拜物教思想及其对消费重要性的探讨则为消费文化批判提供了视角上的借鉴。其次，卢卡奇的“物化”理论、葛兰西的文化霸权理论为其打开了文化批判的新视野。同时，随着西方社会逐渐步入消费社会，经济上的凯恩斯主义逐渐代替了新教伦理，资本积累转向资本扩展，消费成为促进资本发展的主要动力，生产的异化逐渐延伸到消费领域。资本主义社会生活的这些新变化不断推动文化批判理论的深入，引导批判理论的目光从生产领域转移到消费领域，批判路向从历史宏观视域转移到日常生活视域。西方马克思主义消费文化研究呈现多样的理论进路。

First, the approach of consumer culture critique combining mass culture critique and technological critique. Horkheimer and Adorno, in their critique of the culture industry, pointed out that the culture industry not only refers to culture being incorporated into the track of industrialization, following the logic of rationalization, but also refers to culture becoming a commodity, following the logic of the market economy. Cultural commodities replace pure use value with pure exchange value, using the illusions of happiness, pleasure, and success created by exchange value to entice consumers. Subsequently, a universal change in order occurred in the world of commodities; consumption shifted from use value to exchange value. Through this change, capitalist society as a whole created a fetishistic social atmosphere, fixing human happiness and value on the consumption of exchange value. Humans became a link in the continuation of the industrial production chain, and human creativity, subjectivity, individual emotions, etc., disappeared completely. People immersed themselves in pleasure, refused to reflect, and increasingly identified with the existing social order.

第一，结合大众文化批判和技术批判的消费文化批判路向。霍克海默和阿多诺在批判文化工业时指出，文化工业不仅指的是文化被纳入工业化的轨道之中，遵循着理性化的逻辑，还指文化变成了商品，遵循着市场经济的逻辑。文化商品用纯粹交换价值取代纯粹的使用价值，用交换价值所营造出来的幸福、享乐、成功等幻想，引诱消费者。进而商品世界发生了普遍的秩序变化，消费从使用价值向交换价值转移。通过这种变化，资本主义社会在整体上营造了拜物的社会氛围，将人的幸福和价值固定在交换价值的消费之上，人成为工业化生产链条延续的一环，人的创造性、主体性、个性情感等消失殆尽。人们沉浸享乐拒绝反思，更加认同现行的社会秩序。

Second, the approach of consumer culture critique combined with ideological critique. Marcuse explicitly called advanced industrial society a "consumer society," arguing that consumer culture had become a new form of social control. In the consumer society, ideology has not disappeared but has taken on new characteristics. In the consumer society, commodities are not merely material products; they also contain the ideology and values of the current ruling class, including the cultural background of society. Choosing and purchasing a commodity simultaneously involves accepting the ideas contained within it. When these ideas are accepted by the majority, commodity consumption promotes a lifestyle under a specific ideology. To make a profit, capitalism imposes manufactured false needs on people and creates a picture of a happy and free life. With the help of mass media, it penetrates people's hearts in the form of commodity consumption. People become addicted to abundant material life, immersed in illusory happiness, completely losing their capacity for reflection and critique as independent thinking individuals, becoming one-dimensional consuming persons.

第二，结合意识形态批判的消费文化批判路向。马尔库塞明确将发达工业社会称为“消费社会”，他认为消费文化已经成了社会控制的新形式。在消费社会，意识形态并没有消失，而是呈现出新的特征。在消费社会中，商品并不仅是物质产品，它还内蕴着当前统治阶级的思想意识和价值观念，包含着社会的文化背景。选择和购买商品，同时也接受着商品中所包含的观念，当这种观念为大多数人所接受时，商品消费就推行了一种意识形态下的生活方式。资本主义为了获利将制造出来的虚假需求强加于人并营造出幸福自由的生活图景，在大众媒体的推波助澜下，以商品消费的形式渗透人心。人们沉迷在丰富的物质生活中，沉浸在虚幻的幸福里，作为独立思想个体的反思和批判能力完全丧失，变成单向度的消费人。

Third, the approach of consumer culture critique combined with psychoanalysis. From the entirely new perspective of psychoanalysis, Fromm analyzed and further explained the phenomenon of alienation in the sphere of consumption and its roots. He believed that alienated consumption is the essence of consumption in advanced industrial society, while the unsound psychological mechanisms and character structures constitute the internal cause of this alienated consumption. Alienation is not only a social state but also a psychological state. As human power gradually grew stronger, humans broke free from the external world that bound them, but at the same time, the meaning of life and sense of security originally attached to the external world were also lost. Accompanying their own independence, humans became increasingly alienated from nature and from others, growing lonelier, and were forced to choose to escape freedom and lose their selves in search of peace. The strategy of conformism in the sphere of consumption reflects this. In the consumption process, consumers constantly imitate to pursue fashion. In consumption, they avoid differing from the public's aesthetics and tastes, integrating into the group through conformist consumption methods. Consumption has become a way of existence for many consumers to avoid loneliness. However, the consumption of objects is fundamentally a mode of appropriation. Driven by the continuous unfolding of desire, appropriation is endless. The fickleness of consumption fashions fully illustrates this point. Appropriation through consumption cannot form a sound human nature; the human spirit is always in a state of deficiency.

第三，结合精神分析的消费文化批判路向。弗洛姆从精神分析的全新角度分析并进一步阐释了消费领域中的异化现象及其根源。他认为，异化消费是发达工业社会消费的实质，而不健全的心理机制和性格构成则是这种异化消费产生的内在原因。异化不但是一种社会状态，更是一种心理状态。随着人类力量的逐渐强大，逐渐挣脱了束缚他的外部世界，同时原本依附于外部世界的生命意义和安全感也随之丧失。伴随着自身的独立，人与自然、与他人越来越疏离，日渐孤独，被迫选择逃避自由、丧失自我来寻求安宁。消费领域的从众化策略就体现了这一点，在消费过程中，消费者通过不断地模仿来追寻时尚。在消费中，避免与大众的审美和情趣产生不同，以从众化的消费方式融入群体。消费成了很多消费者躲避孤独的存在方式，但是对物的消费从根本上说是一种占有的方式，在欲望的不断推演下，占有是无止境的。消费风尚的易变充分说明了这点。消费上的占有并不能形成健全的人性，人的精神永远处于一种匮乏状态。

Fourth, the approach of consumer culture theory from the perspective of cultural construction. Unlike scholars of the Frankfurt School, Fiske places more emphasis on the dynamic significance of cultural struggle. He believes that struggle not only implies hegemony but also has the significance of reverse construction. On the one hand, mass consumers are not entirely one-dimensional; they still possess subjectivity. The mainstream ideology promoted by consumer culture is externally imposed on people. In this process, consumers are not simply passive recipients; instead, they respond by adopting different strategies. The mobility, variability, and initiative of the consuming masses provide the possibility to resist the unilateral oppression of consumer culture. Consumers may evade or resist the mainstream ideology embedded in commodities, or even reconstruct it in reverse. On the other hand, ideology is not entirely unified; the interests within the ruling class are not completely consistent. Not all commodities carry the mainstream ideology through to the end. Due to the profit-seeking nature of capital, when an ideological strategy is conducive to commodity sales, commodity producers will actively infiltrate ideology into the production of commodities. When an ideological strategy is not conducive to or even hinders commodity sales, commodity producers will not adopt it. This leaves blank spaces for the generation of commodity signs, providing possibilities for consumers' reverse interpretation and construction.

第四，文化建构视角的消费文化理论路向。不同于法兰克福学派的学者，菲克斯更注重文化斗争的动态意义，他认为，斗争不仅意味着霸权，也具有反向建构的意义。一方面，大众消费者并不是完全单向度的，他们仍然具有主体性。消费文化所推行的主流意识形态是外在强加于人的，那么在此过程中，消费者也并不是单方面的被动接受，而是通过采取不同的策略进行应对。消费大众的流动性、变化性、主动性为对抗消费文化的单方面倾轧提供了可能。消费者对商品中蕴含的主流意识形态可能躲避，也可能抵抗，甚至反过来进行重新建构。另一方面，意识形态也并非完全统一，统治阶级内部利益并不完全一致。不是所有的商品都会将主流意识形态贯穿到底。出于资本的逐利性，当意识形态的策略有助于商品销售时，商品的生产者就会积极地将意识形态渗透进商品的生产中，而当意识形态策略无助于商品销售甚至阻碍商品销售时，商品的生产者则不会采用。这就为商品符号的生成预留了空白点，为消费者的反向解读和建构提供了可能。

Fifth, the semiotic approach to consumer culture critique. In his early work, Baudrillard used semiotic methods combined with Marxist political economy to study the entire consumer society. He believed that consumption is an active mode of relationship; through objects, people establish relationships with others, collectives, and society. Consumption is a comprehensive response to society, and it is precisely in the construction of this relationship that the cultural system is established. Commodities are signs within the system. Consuming a commodity is not about consuming its materiality but its difference. Therefore, consumption is actually an activity manipulated by the sign system. He further critiqued the ideology of the consumer society: the culture formed by the consumer society transfers the social politics of democracy, equality, and happiness to the sphere of consumption. Once people consume, they mistakenly believe they have obtained the information conveyed behind the commodity sign. In pursuit of individuality and social recognition, people continuously chase the commodity signs within the entire "system of objects," integrating into the "system of objects" of the whole society, so that the ideology of the consumer society thus silently controls the consumer. In his later work, Baudrillard saw the significant impact of media on the consumer society. Media intensified the control and dissemination of the sign system, determining the way people perceive the world. Based on this, he asserted that the entire society had become a society of signs, and subsequently abandoned Marx's method of political economy, turning to semiotic analysis and post-structuralist methods.

第五，符号学消费文化批判路向。鲍德里亚早期用符号学方法结合马克思主义的政治经济学方法研究整个消费社会。他认为，消费是一种关系的主动模式，人们通过物品建立了一种与他人、集体、社会的关系，消费是对社会的一种全面性的回应，正是在这种关系的建构中文化体系得以建立。商品是系统中的符号，消费商品并不是消费其物质性，而是其差异性，因此消费实际上是符号系统操控的活动。进而他批判了消费社会的意识形态：消费社会形成的文化就是将社会政治的民主、平等、幸福转移到消费领域。人们消费了就误以为获得了商品符号背后所传达的信息。为了追求个性化和社会认同，人们不断去追求整个“物体系”中的商品符号，融入整个社会的“物体系”中，以致消费社会的意识形态就这样悄无声息地控制了消费者。鲍德里亚晚期看到了媒介对消费社会的重大影响，媒介加剧了对符号系统的控制和传播，决定了人们认知世界的方式，据此他断言整个社会成了符号的社会，进而放弃了马克思的政治经济学方法，转向了符号学分析和后结构主义的方法。

Consumer society is an unavoidable historical reality of the present era, and a profound critical spirit toward consumer society has consistently run through the theories of Western Marxists. After Baudrillard, numerous Western Marxist scholars, such as Bauman and Lefebvre, have reflected on and criticized consumption as a mechanism of social domestication. However, due to their lack of a historical materialist standpoint, the theoretical solutions they propose manifest as an impotent elitism. In essence, whether it is Marx’s critique of the logic of material production or Western Marxist scholars’ critique of the logic of consumption, the substance of both is a critique of the logic of capital, and the way out necessarily lies in the fundamental transformation of the relations of production. By abandoning the method of critique of political economy and placing their hopes in an aesthetic utopia or the self-awakening of a few individuals, Western Marxist scholars inevitably lose the real force of critique and lack the theoretical courage to change the world.

消费社会是当代不可回避的历史现实，对消费社会的深刻批判精神一直贯穿在西方马克思主义者的理论当中。鲍德里亚之后，众多的西方马克思主义学者如鲍曼和列斐伏尔等，都对成为社会驯化机制的消费进行了反思和批判，但是由于缺乏历史唯物主义的立场，其理论出路都表现为精英主义的软弱无力。从本质上讲，无论是马克思对物质生产逻辑的批判还是西方马克思主义学者对消费逻辑的批判，其实质都是对资本逻辑的批判，其出路必然是生产关系的根本变革。西方马克思主义学者抛弃政治经济学批判方法，寄希望于审美的乌托邦或少数个体的自我觉醒，必然会因丧失批判的现实力量而缺乏改变世界的理论勇气。

Online editor: Zhang Jian

网络编辑：张剑