The French philosopher Gilles Lipovetsky has spent this week through Madrid and Valladolid to participate in the Culture Forum.The author of essays such as 'Liking and Emotion' or 'The Stestization of the World' or the famous 'The Era of Vacuum' speaks in this interview about the modes of consumption after the pandemic and the need to change the production models in the face of an increaseof consumer hyperindividualism, which enters into contradiction with the limitation and shortage of resources.
QUESTION.Has pandemia or postpandemics brought us new forms of consumption?We have audiovisual platforms, electronic commerce and companies benefited from all this.
RESPONSE. No, it's all the same. Pandemia has not revolutionized the culture of consumption but accentuated the trends that already existed. The ones you just evoke, the purchase 'online' ... With confinement people began to buy through Amazon, to ask for foods for restaurants, to see Netflix, but it was not the pandemic that created this, but the digitalization of the digitalization of the world that existed before. What the crisis did was develop it and I think this will continue. What Pandemia is going to do is transform the relationship with work rather than consumption. The work yes because companies understood that you could work at home, which is formidable because you earn time, you can be at home with children, you can work at night ... but in the face of your question, in the first moments of Pandemia The media talked about the idea of the day after and that the crisis was going to change consumption habits completely. Consumers, suddenly, had become intelligent and distinguished between the essential and the non -essential. That is, the pandemic was going to revolutionize consumption, which I do not believe at all.
Lipovetsky: "La gente no va a dejar de comer carne ni de ir en coche para salvar el planeta" Marta García AllerQ. Why?
A. As soon as all the restrictions go, we will see everything full of people, California, Las Vegas, the bars, the restaurants because people want to leave. It is possible that the frequency with which people go to film rooms change because Netflix. But this is not for pandemic, but because people already have a subscription to Netflix. Therefore, thinking that consumption will have less prevalence in people's lives, it is not so. And it is due to three reasons. The first is that the pleasure of consuming is no longer an effect of advertising and marketing. People no longer see an ad and buy. The passion to consume is based mainly on the Modern Age, that is, in a society that secularized. Ancient societies found meaning in the relationship with the above, it was about preparing the life of after death. But with the modern age what people want is to live better here. It does not mean that people have become atheistic, people can continue to believe, but want to live well right now, and live better. And that's where the problem is. The Modern Age invested the axis, and the passion for consumption is one of the consequences of this. People want a garden, travel. And we know we have nothing more than a life.
The second reason is that capitalism is global.And for many decades it will still inject news because that is its nature.It is the competition and you always have to find news.Capitalism has terribly accentuated the passion for the new because the new, as Freud said, is a movement for pleasure.The novelty excites you, it is erotic.A new trip, a new car, a new hairstyle, a new perfume, a new house.They are pizquitas of happiness and capitalism throws them continuously.As I say in the book (‘Like and excite’), capitalism is a world seducer that seduces you day and night, a new trip! A new ice cream! A new pair of glasses!And there is no alternative.I do not say for all eternity, but for the next centuries.Even in China there is a terrible capitalism of luxury and materialism.
"Capitalism has terribly accentuated the passion for the new because the new, as Freud said, is a movement for pleasure."
The third reason is that consumption fulfills a very important function in today's daily life and is that it comforts us.Before, when one had problems with his lover, with his girl ... you went to church to pray.No now, now you go to the psychoanalyst, go on a trip or the hairdresser.Consumption has a therapeutic function, it is a way that frustrations are lowered.It gives you a little while of happiness.That's why I don't see how we can change this.
Q. jumping everything through the air?Because resources are limited.There can be not all for everyone.
A. Obviously this consumer hyperindividualism is not sustainable. And enters into contradiction with the demands of the collective. And what the group says is the preservation of the future. The current trend is that we have to lower our consumption levels. There is Greta Thunberg who says that you do not have to take airplanes, that you do not have to buy everything in the latest fashion. The plane has become the devil. Iberia is worse than the devil of yesteryear! Now, it was jokes, on a personal level I think you have to live with less consumerist drives. I agree with that, but that's not important. The important thing is to see the illusion that links this thought that relies on a punitive ecology, an environmental environmental movement. It is that trend that tells you that what you do is not right, that you are making an error. And I believe that this trend will not have deep effects on people's behavior because happiness drives are stronger than moral demand. Let's see, let's imagine an impossible thing: that everyone begins to follow a sober way of life. We would not go by plane, we would not use the heating so much, we would buy less pants or were all second -hand. Well, even if we did this, it would not be enough. Even a strong ethic by consumers would not be enough.
The problem is macroscopic. We live on a planet with almost 10,000 million inhabitants. How are we going to nurture all the people? You have to build houses, schools, bring water .. Indeed, and with respect to your question, changes in consumption are needed and for that what it has to change, as Marx said, are the production models. That is, they have to be more ecological production models. We must invest in science and innovation to have renewable energy sources. This is the bottom of the matter. The solution is not to stop taking the plane but changing the production system of airplanes with hydrogen because people will want to continue traveling. And this we can do it. You also have to raise awareness of consumers to consume less meat and consume organic products ... All of that is fine, but what really is needed are the new sources of energy and the investment of the states in that. What happens is that there are many political impediments.
Q. You said: "Happiness drives are stronger than moral demand."That is why anti -restrictions that hinder all these changes in production models triumph?
A. Yes, but what I try to say is that a realistic approach to things is needed. Look, for example, when Volkswagen cheated with his diesel engine. A few days later people continued to buy Volkswagen even if they had cheated. That is, the moralizing speech only reaches a certain part of the public, on a planet where we are billions of inhabitants. Do you think the Chinese listen to it? Or the Africans who only have three dollars a day to live? China is now the most polluting country in the world. Let's see, I don't want to be a preacher. That would be very easy and I don't like anything, besides. There are ecology leaders who have dozens of cars at home. As Spinoza said, you have to take men as they are and not as we dream of them. So what I think is that it is best to give people a new offer that allows them to go to a better quality of life. I am not in favor of a minor consumption, but I am in favor of consuming better. It is better for health, for ecology. But for this it has to be accessible and right now the organic products are three times more expensive and people cannot buy them. Of course, much "you have to ...", but now consume less is more expensive.
Q. The quid of the matter, he says, are the changes in the production models.In this sense, is there a left that is wrong with the speech and is being used by an extreme right that does not want changes?
A. Of course.Within the extreme right there are many ramifications, but yes.What needs to be done is to demonstrate that science, technique, is not the devil.There is a current that comes from Heidegger's philosophy that says the technique is the devil.And that has caused the increase in pollution, the temperature of the planet and that is a catastrophe.But what I say is that what the catastrophe has caused can be what can save us.I know it is a Marxist reasoning and, although I am not, I think Marx is right.Without the technique we cannot find global solutions.The intelligence of men is what can solve crises and not moral.Moral makes people recycle, help with garbage ... All these things that are fine but are not going to solve the global problem.First of all, I believe that responsibility is political and economic.
"Moral makes people recycle, help with garbage ... all these things that are fine, but they will not solve the global problem"
Companies have to change their practices.The luxury industry, for example, has to change its practices, because what it is for me to be responsible if companies continue to behave with horrible levels of consumerism.If the punitive speech is successful, it will be for a greater reason and that is to do this (recycling, buying organic products etc) gives meaning to your life.People who commit and stop eating meat, etc., what it has is a feeling of being an active actor and not just passive.That is what explains a certain part of success, limited yes, of this current.Anyway, although it seems to me that it does not solve anything, it is not something that is wrong.
Q. However, do you perceive that there are already changes in this direction that speaks, in that of the means of production, not only by consumers but of policies?Are this trend being implemented, despite obstacles?
A. It's something that is already there, yes.There is a whole current and sensitivity.People see it.There are practices, movements.For example, the fact of sharing a car.Things of this type that are good and positive.Worldwide we see a progress.But this is not enough.And not only the consumer is to blame, there are political tensions.Go to say Putin how such.There are geopolitical strategies ... what to do is stop moralizing everything because morality was never what the world changed.There are other forces.We have seen it in France with yellow vests.For eight months the movement had nothing to do with morality.They were people who felt rejected and that has nothing to do with morality.
This happened as a result of the price of gasoline, a decision that can be good for the planet, but not good for you and from there came eight months of struggle. You have to have a certain prudence. Personally and as a philosopher I live in a simple way, but this is not the subject. You have to have a planetary thought. And this enters political, economic and cultural forces. The policy has to take the reins and fight the conspiratory movements that intend to diabolize the elites. The elites cannot be separated because if not, we will not have electric motors or hydrogen aircraft or the production models will be changed. The scientific elite. So be careful with the speech that criticizes elites. It is the same speech that is against the vaccine. Hyper individualism. For me, individualism is fine, but hyperindividualism poses many problems because we cannot be alone and with the self, me, me. Yes, but others are also necessary. And also elites are necessary. We now have a big problem with conspiracy because let's not forget that they are not illiterate either.
