is Individualist Consumerism a philosophy or lifestyle choice?

banaman

Given that we have all,allegedly, become less public-spirited and more self-centered is individualistic consumerism really a philosophy on a par with say Buddhism, Nihilism, Atheism or is it merely a failure to rise above ones wish for self-gratification?

Jackie laughlin

I can't see how Buddhism or atheism could be considered philosophies.

Individualist consumerism is the triumph of liberalism or perhaps neo-liberalism. Given, its almost complete acceptance, this one political doctrine is winning hands down at the polls and for people's allegiance.

lostexpectation

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I can't see how Buddhism or atheism could be considered philosophies.

Individualist consumerism is the triumph of liberalism or perhaps neo-liberalism. Given, its almost complete acceptance, this one political doctrine is winning hands down at the polls and for people's allegiance.

and you said you were a socialist, I think your a wood dweller

Jackie laughlin

I am a socialist. I merely commented; I didn't agree. What is a "wood dweller"?

Ghost Rider

Jackie,

If neoliberalism is that much of a popular success, then people must believe we are living in a free market. But I'm not sure we are, for all kinds of reasons (in part to do with our own government's economic policies but also to do with those of the EU).

But if we aren't living in a free market, then the consensus about neoliberalism must be false. It could be a false consensus in the sense that the majority people believe it to be true when it is in fact false. Or it could be a false consensus in the sense that the majority do not in fact believe it at all. I'm not sure which.

Either way, I personally believe a lot of people are gradually coming around to the view that the free market is an illusion. Of course, when that view finds a political expression is another matter...

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Given, its almost complete acceptance, this one political doctrine is winning hands down at the polls and for people's allegiance.

Chakar

I would say thats its a lifestyle choice as people can choose to live with the bare minimum of material goods while living their life.

Philosophy? I think not.

Scigaithris

banaman wrote:

Given that we have all,allegedly, become less public-spirited and more self-centered is individualistic consumerism really a philosophy on a par with say Buddhism, Nihilism, Atheism or is it merely a failure to rise above ones wish for self-gratification?

Are not all inclusive statements such as "Given that we have all" problematic, rendering your original premise weak based upon such a generalization?

Would it depend upon how "individualistic consumerism" was defined and by whom? For example, how does this concept differ from the fetish capitalism of Karl Marx?*







*Footnote: There may be the beginnings of a conceptual definition for "individualistic" by introducing the notions of "less public-spirited" and "self-centered," but there are no attempts to define "consumerism," or the meaning of the two terms "individualistic" and "consumerism" when combined. Furthermore, citing the works of specific philosophers concerning these concepts would lend intersubjective support to your arguments?

muesli_offire

Originally Posted by Scigaithris:
For example, how does this concept differ from the fetish capitalism of Karl Marx?*

Its not a figment of the imagination - although I'm all for metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties.

Furthermore, citing the works of specific philosophers concerning these concepts would lend intersubjective support to your arguments?

What do you mean, "Intersubjective suport"? Do you mean that the OP should provide a better context? No offence but you sound like you've just swallowed the primer for some undergraduate literary theory course. For me, "intersubjective support" is people learning from each other without the need for a litany of book references.

Scigaithris

muesli_offire wrote:

No offence but you sound like you've just swallowed the primer for some undergraduate literary theory course.

Is a personal attack a suitable foundation for a philosophical argument?

muesli_offire wrote:

What do you mean, "Intersubjective suport"? Do you mean that the OP should provide a better context?...For me, "intersubjective support" is people learning from each other without the need for a litany of book references.

Literary theory was not the context that I had in mind, but rather from two complementary perspectives.

1. Husserl's Theory of Intersubjectivity. Not sure I will do him justice in such a short summary of a complex theory, but essentially he contended that:
(a) subjectivity is in reality intersubjectivity
(b) that your subjectivity is really "inter" or between other subjectivities; i.e., that your philosophy comes not from you all by yourself, but from your interaction with other philosophers or persons interested in philosophy.
(c) so when making a philosophical point or argument, you may strengthen your position by acknowledging these other philosophies, philosophers, or interested persons in philosophy, whether they be from face-to-face, letters, emails, boards postings, presentations at conferences, essays, texts, etc.

By your above statement, it would appear that you acknowledge the value in both (a) implied in your comment, and (b) explicit in your comment? The point in my original statement to banaman was to suggest that his argument would be stronger and more credible in a very public boards.ie posting if he included intersubjectivity and cite some sources, which, by the way, could have also been you, if he thought you had contributed something to the discussion.

2. Philosophy of Science and Research Methodology. Unless you wish to explore it further, I will just briefly mention that intersubjectivity is of great importance in the philosophy of science (Anatol Rapoport's Operational Philosophy, Arnold Brecht's Political Theory, Abraham Kaplan's The Conduct of Inquiry) and research methodology (Earl Babbie's The Practice of Social Research, and David Nachmias's and Chava Nachmias's Research Methods in the Social Sciences). They essentially agree with, and extend the Husserlian viewpoint on the importance intersubjectivity.

In concluding, intersubjectivity is of vital interest across many fields of inquiry, including philosophy, cognitive science, research methodology, and the social and behavioural sciences. For example, in January 2005 an international conference was held in Orlando, Florida, USA, with the title and central theme: "Phenomenology, Intersubjectivity, and Theory of Mind."

muesli_offire

Originally Posted by Scigaithris:
The point in my original statement to banaman was to suggest that his argument would be stronger and more credible in a very public boards.ie posting if he included intersubjectivity and cite some sources...

Again, I don't not know what you mean here, nor I fear do you. The OP never made an argument! He/She presented a series of assumptions that might even be regarded as hypotheticals (given your interpretation of 'allegedly' - I find it bizarre that you managed to gloss this word while you nitpicked others). One might regard the OP's contribution as in essence* no more than a cipher of topicality to play with - almost like yourself.

...if he thought you had contributed something to the discussion.

As for contributing, I believe I'm the only one out of the pair of us whose actually made a positive contribution, and I think you really need to pay closer attention:

Originally Posted by Muesli_offire:

Originally Posted by Scigaithris:
For example, how does this concept differ from the fetish capitalism of Karl Marx?*

Its not a figment of the imagination - although I'm all for metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties.

So, my tuppence = "fetish capitalism" not real, individualist consumerism not not real.

All you've done is gone on a methodological rant (as if it were a thesis - OP may disagree) about a lack of "intersubjectivity" while ironically failing to engage with the topic at all! Your a critic, I get it. But seriously, I think college is starting to rub off on you a bit. Also why are you at the OP to clarify*? I guess its fine if you want to impose your own terms on the discussion.

Is a personal attack a suitable foundation for a philosophical argument?

No, but a personal touch does lend "intersubjectivity".

Not sure I will do him justice in such a short summary of a complex theory...

Don't worry, because he won't: he's dead.

I shall look up all your references and they seem very relevant to the discussion.

*see husserl.
*see heidegger, History of The Concept of Time, esp chptr. 8a):'The meaning of the maxim "to the matters themselves"', and chptr. 9: 'Clarication of the name 'phenomenology'', c) 'Correcting a few misunderstandiings of phenomenology which stem from its name'.

Ghost Rider

I'm not sure what you're saying either. When you use the term "fetish capitalism", are you referring to commodity fetishism?

And what are you contrasting it with? Is it the way in which, under consumerism, "taste" becomes the principle means of individuating oneself?

I'm hazarding a guess that this is what you mean. If so, why is one less real than the other? Is it something to do with the supposed element of choice in the latter?

muesli_offire wrote:

Again, I don't not know what you mean here, nor I fear do you. The OP never made an argument! He/She presented a series of assumptions that might even be regarded as hypotheticals (given your interpretation of 'allegedly' - I find it bizarre that you managed to gloss this word while you nitpicked others). One might regard the OP's contribution as in essence* no more than a cipher of topicality to play with - almost like yourself.


As for contributing, I believe I'm the only one out of the pair of us whose actually made a positive contribution, and I think you really need to pay closer attention:

So, my tuppence = "fetish capitalism" not real, individualist consumerism not not real.

All you've done is gone on a methodological rant (as if it were a thesis - OP may disagree) about a lack of "intersubjectivity" while ironically failing to engage with the topic at all! Your a critic, I get it. But seriously, I think college is starting to rub off on you a bit. Also why are you at the OP to clarify*? I guess its fine if you want to impose your own terms on the discussion.


No, but a personal touch does lend "intersubjectivity".


Don't worry, because he won't: he's dead.

I shall look up all your references and they seem very relevant to the discussion.

*see husserl.
*see heidegger, History of The Concept of Time, esp chptr. 8a):'The meaning of the maxim "to the matters themselves"', and chptr. 9: 'Clarication of the name 'phenomenology'', c) 'Correcting a few misunderstandiings of phenomenology which stem from its name'.

Scigaithris

muesli_offire wrote:

I shall look up all your references and they seem very relevant to the discussion.

*see husserl.
*see heidegger, History of The Concept of Time, esp chptr. 8a):'The meaning of the maxim "to the matters themselves"', and chptr. 9: 'Clarication of the name 'phenomenology'', c) 'Correcting a few misunderstandiings of phenomenology which stem from its name'.

This supports the very point I was attempting to make. That intersubjectivity and the citation of sources are important to philosophical discussion. Thank you.

Scigaithris

Ghost Rider wrote:

I'm not sure what you're saying either. When you use the term "fetish capitalism", are you referring to commodity fetishism?

And what are you contrasting it with? Is it the way in which, under consumerism, "taste" becomes the principle means of individuating oneself?

I'm hazarding a guess that this is what you mean. If so, why is one less real than the other? Is it something to do with the supposed element of choice in the latter?

Please refer to my sentence that preceded the "For example" question, as well as the footnote that was used to clarify my point. I could have just as easily stated: For example, how is individualist consumerism different from peaches and cream? The major point being made was that the "individualist consumerism" concept was not clearly defined. I was hoping by my comment that the OP would come back and more clearly define what he/she meant, along with some support for his/her definition.

Ghost Rider

My questions weren't addressed to you but to the Muesli guy. (Look under my post, and you'll see I was quoting him, not you.)

Scigaithris wrote:

Please refer to my sentence that preceded the "For example" question, as well as the footnote that was used to clarify my point. I could have just as easily stated: For example, how is individualist consumerism different from peaches and cream? The major point being made was that the "individualist consumerism" concept was not clearly defined. I was hoping by my comment that the OP would come back and more clearly define what he/she meant, along with some support for his/her definition.

DadaKopf

banaman wrote:

Given that we have all,allegedly, become less public-spirited and more self-centered is individualistic consumerism really a philosophy on a par with say Buddhism, Nihilism, Atheism or is it merely a failure to rise above ones wish for self-gratification?

Ha, sounds like Fianna Fáil's opening election strategy. I wouldn't mind discussing Bertie's civic responsibility discourse.

Catsmokinpot

I don't think that consumerism is a philosophy or a lifestyle choice, We can thank Edward bernays (nephew of Sigmund Freud) for the consumerist attitude that more and more people are displaying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays

People used to just buy what they needed, and just to make money; bernays used a quality within people that was realised by his uncle and created public relations, which is basically manipulating people by trying to appeal their irrational emotions, making them think to themselves "you'll feel alot better if you have this" and because people in general are sheep; when one does it they all do it.

Bernays turned this into an artform, now pretty much every corporation/business uses his techniques. You know people who say things just aren't built to last anymore? well its true they really aren't made to last. its all part of the ploy to make people buy more.

i have a really indepth documentary about it, can't remember the name of it will find out when i get home.

DadaKopf

Yeah, yeah, The Century of the Self. Good series.

Now, tell me how consumerism isn't an ideology since:

• Consumerism was enabled by psychosocial techniques by people like Bernays
• Consumerism was driven by the interests of corporations and American and European corporations, which were seen as drivers of post-WWII recovery
• Consumerism was very openly embraced by government and public as a national duty in the fight against communism, but also as a political means to win public support
• Consumerism was identified by the radical new-Left in the 1960s as a counterrevolutionary ideology, views, ironically, embraced by the new marketing theorists of the late-1990s to today
• That all of the above is bound up in the historical processes of capitalism

We see it today. Money = freedom. You buy things with money. Therefore, buying more things means you're freer. But as a result of consumerist theories, commodities have become cyphers - or shadows - of a life we want for ourselves: we want the exciting life that is alluded to in advertising, or products, but increasingly our desire for that life is obstructed, or replaced, by commodities. We become slaves to objects, rather than free agents pursuing authentic liberation. (Some people think this is alright. I don't.)

Consumerism is wedded to economic and political liberalism. It's very difficult to repel consumerism - to convince people of its dangers - because it's situated within this broader discourse. Because commodity desire is so affective - meaning people feel it so strongly in their bodies, like religion - it's hard to wrest people from their sense that it is liberation when it's the opposite.

For example, increasingly in Ireland car drivers see driving as a 'right' rather than a 'privilege', or something in between. The emotional connection between an internal combustion engine on wheels and freedom is so strong now. While cars are useful instruments, they have costs, and embody an entire ideology (not to mention environmental impact). At the extreme end are SUVs, which are succesful not because they're good cars, or neccesary, but because they satisfy psychological needs that are elicited by car companies by making people feel insecure.

To me, consumerism = ideology. "Is consumerism a lifestyle choice?" I think this ideology is contained within the question. It's vital to examine the nature of choice within this state of affairs.

Is consumerism a philosophy? It's derived from philosophies. But as always, philosophies are really condensations of people doing stuff - consumerism within liberal capitalism is an ideology because when you look at how people think and act and reproduce those thoughts and actions, their relations of power, it's what emerges.

SkepticOne

Consumerism is the practice of conspicuous consumption. It is consuming for the sake of consuming. It is more of a tendency than a philosophy although there may well be a philosophy or ideology associated with it just like there is a philosophy or ideology advocating it's opposite - anti-consumerism, but the thing itself, I would maintain, is not a philosophy but a practice or tendency to practice. Consumerism occurs wherever there is excess income and the availability of goods to buy with this excess income. In times gone by, it would only have been a small elite minority who could have engaged in consumerism and in poorer countries this is still the case.

People buying the latest flat-screen TV don't do so because they have read some book saying how great consumerism is but because they want - or think they want - a flat-screen TV.

I don't believe there is a conspiracy to make them want to buy stuff since such a tendency has always existed in situations of wealth. It is just that now, far more of us can afford to consume and so we do.

This is not to suggest it is a good thing. It is neither good nor bad. We simply have to recognise that there are costs associated with it as well as benefits.

DadaKopf

Consumerism occurs wherever there is excess income and the availability of goods to buy with this excess income.

Except that many people buy beyond their means on credit. This is not 'disposeable income'. Many of those who borrow do so beyond their means to repay the loans. So what is driving the spending binge?

In the case of the USA, it is corporate interest fused with nationalism, and the perilous position that most Americans would find themselves in should people stop spending.

What could you call this other than 'consumerism', like 'nationalism'?

I'd agree that capitalism, and within that 'consumerism', is a 'tendency', but I think your argument is tautologous.

Ghost Rider

The notion that there is nothing more to consumerism than the sum total of all people in a position to consume is highly reductive. I very much doubt the urge to consume "for the sake of consuming" is simply a "natural" consequence of there being a surplus of money about. As you yourself put it so tellingly, many merely people "think they want" a flat-screen TV.

But how could it be possible for a person to think they want something? Do they want it or don't they? At the very least, we are dealing with a complex psychological phenomenon, however common it may be.

So consumerism is not merely a social phenomenon (i.e. product consumption) but also, crucially, a psychological phenomenon. If so, it is undoubtedly also a group psychological phenomenon and, most likely, a mass psychological phenomenon. Thus, in so far as the term "ideology" can refer to the sway of ideas over a mass of people in a more or less non-rational or subliminal manner, calling consumerism an ideology doesn't seem altogether inappropriate.

You might object by saying that, considered as ideology, consumerism lacks one of the key features of traditional ideologies: namely, a belief system.

But, to turn the thing on its head somewhat, it could be that traditional belief systems always operated in subliminal ways. In that case, it could be that consumerism, rather than falling outside the category of ideology, illuminates the very category by revealing it to have always been "intimate" with the realm of unsonscious desire.

To take this line of argument even further, it is possible - even likely - that traditional ideologies (such as religions) not merely operated in the realm of the unconscious, but invented their conceptual frameworks in order to mask their essentially "desire-shaping" functions.

SkepticOne wrote:

Consumerism is the practice of conspicuous consumption. It is consuming for the sake of consuming. It is more of a tendency than a philosophy although there may well be a philosophy or ideology associated with it just like there is a philosophy or ideology advocating it's opposite - anti-consumerism, but the thing itself, I would maintain, is not a philosophy but a practice or tendency to practice. Consumerism occurs wherever there is excess income and the availability of goods to buy with this excess income. In times gone by, it would only have been a small elite minority who could have engaged in consumerism and in poorer countries this is still the case.

People buying the latest flat-screen TV don't do so because they have read some book saying how great consumerism is but because they want - or think they want - a flat-screen TV.

I don't believe there is a conspiracy to make them want to buy stuff since such a tendency has always existed in situations of wealth. It is just that now, far more of us can afford to consume and so we do.

This is not to suggest it is a good thing. It is neither good nor bad. We simply have to recognise that there are costs associated with it as well as benefits.

SkepticOne

DadaKopf wrote:

Except that many people buy beyond their means on credit. This is not 'disposeable income'. Many of those who borrow do so beyond their means to repay the loans. So what is driving the spending binge?

It is still due to excess income. Subsistance farmers in undeveloped countries don't get credit to buy plasma TVs. Credit can be viewed as bringing forward tomorrow's excess income so it can be spent today. It can also be viewed as someone else's excess income. This credit would not have been lent in the past because people would not have had the means to pay it back. Today even factory workers (what is left of them) in affluent countries can command vast amounts of money (in terms of what they can buy with it) compared to workers in history.

DadaKopf

And why are financial institutions and companies offering more credit? Because of the financialisation of the marketplace. There is now more profit in selling debt than products. To achieve such demand for debt, desire for products must be stronger. Without a borrower finance repayment strategy, without tight demands by lenders for proof of ability to repay loans, I would say it's not really 'disposable income'. As a result, bankruptcy has been skyrocketing in America, Britain and many other countries. Very possibly a recipe for global meltdown.

To me, this demonstrates the ideology of capitalist consumerism.

SkepticOne

DadaKopf wrote:

And why are financial institutions and companies offering more credit?

Because they believe that generally they will get it back + interest. We have more disposable income than before. It does not make any sense to lend to someone with little or no disposable income. Both consumerism and the culture of consumer credit arise, imo, from the increased affluence of the developed countries.

I agree that there is danger in overlending i.e. lending beyond the ability to repay. I think there has been overlending in certain markets in the last few years. Overlending works against consumerism since those who are overextended with debts have little left over after interest payments to spend on consumer goods.

SkepticOne

Ghost Rider wrote:

The notion that there is nothing more to consumerism than the sum total of all people in a position to consume is highly reductive.

I very much doubt the urge to consume "for the sake of consuming" is simply a "natural" consequence of there being a surplus of money about. As you yourself put it so tellingly, many merely people "think they want" a flat-screen TV.

Not quite what I'm saying. It is not just people in a position to consume but that when in that position they actually go about consuming.

I think the urge is there always as an innate part of human psychology. It is only when certain economic conditions are present that consumerism as we know it finds expression.

But how could it be possible for a person to think they want something? Do they want it or don't they? At the very least, we are dealing with a complex psychological phenomenon, however common it may be.

I should have said want - or think they need - something. I agree that it arises out of human psychology and this gives rise to the social phenomenon. Where I think I disagree with you is that I believe that this aspect of human psychology is innate. For this reason I don't think consumerism is primarily ideological. An ideology is needed when innate aspects of human psychology don't suit a particular society. The ideology is then used to bend human behaviour into the form that fits.

Sgt. Sensible

SkepticOne wrote:

Not quite what I'm saying. It is not just people in a position to consume but that when in that position they actually go about consuming.

I think the urge is there always as an innate part of human psychology.

One of the main problems with the German economy is that people don't buy enough stuff and prefer to save their money. How does this fit with your theory?

SkepticOne

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

One of the main problems with the German economy is that people don't buy enough stuff and prefer to save their money. How does this fit with your theory?

But if you go to Germany you will see people walking around in designer labels. You will see shops selling the latest flat screen TVs and people in those shops buying them.

When you say people aren't buying enough stuff, what criteria are you applying? I have heard economists saying this but what what they mean is that there is a greater propensity to save in Germany than say Ireland. It does not mean that they save all their money and only spend on essentials but just that a greater proportion is saved. By 'not spending enough' I would imagine they are talking from the point of view of economic growth and employment.

The only thing I would take from what they are saying is that there are variations in spending from country to country. Not surprising really, and does not go against what I'm saying.

Húrin

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Individualist consumerism is the triumph of liberalism or perhaps neo-liberalism. Given, its almost complete acceptance, this one political doctrine is winning hands down at the polls and for people's allegiance.

That's not true. Even the PDs, the most liberal party, campaign on the need for more public services and they still only get 3% of the vote.

Sgt. Sensible

SkepticOne wrote:

But if you go to Germany you will see people walking around in designer labels. You will see shops selling the latest flat screen TVs and people in those shops buying them.

When you say people aren't buying enough stuff, what criteria are you applying? I have heard economists saying this but what what they mean is that there is a greater propensity to save in Germany than say Ireland. It does not mean that they save all their money and only spend on essentials but just that a greater proportion is saved. By 'not spending enough' I would imagine they are talking from the point of view of economic growth and employment.

The only thing I would take from what they are saying is that there are variations in spending from country to country. Not surprising really, and does not go against what I'm saying.

Sure there are people in designer labels in Germany but the fact is that Germans don't spend spend spend on consumer goods (that they don't need). I've never seen a swanky telly in anyone's house here, in fact most of the people I know don't own a telly and I've been told that this is quite common. I don't know why this is, but things like the events of 1968 had a much greater impact here than elsewhere, and resulted in an anti-consumerist greenish philosophy that pervades society.

Anyway, there are loads of examples of societies where consumerism and even the notion of private property is/was alien. The Americas for instance. What do you make of the Amish then?

Sgt. Sensible

H&#250 wrote: »

That's not true. Even the PDs, the most liberal party, campaign on the need for more public services and they still only get 3% of the vote.

Probably cos everyone knows they'd privatise everything that's not nailed down if they had the chance. Their manifesto is almost identical to Sinn Fein's if you compare the two.

DadaKopf

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

Sure there are people in designer labels in Germany but the fact is that Germans don't spend spend spend on consumer goods (that they don't need). I've never seen a swanky telly in anyone's house here, in fact most of the people I know don't own a telly and I've been told that this is quite common. I don't know why this is, but things like the events of 1968 had a much greater impact here than elsewhere, and resulted in an anti-consumerist greenish philosophy that pervades society.

Anyway, there are loads of examples of societies where consumerism and even the notion of private property is/was alien. The Americas for instance. What do you make of the Amish then?

Where are you living?

RedPlanet

DadaKopf wrote:

Yeah, yeah, The Century of the Self. Good series.

Now, tell me how consumerism isn't an ideology since:

• Consumerism was enabled by psychosocial techniques by people like Bernays
• Consumerism was driven by the interests of corporations and American and European corporations, which were seen as drivers of post-WWII recovery
• Consumerism was very openly embraced by government and public as a national duty in the fight against communism, but also as a political means to win public support
• Consumerism was identified by the radical new-Left in the 1960s as a counterrevolutionary ideology, views, ironically, embraced by the new marketing theorists of the late-1990s to today
• That all of the above is bound up in the historical processes of capitalism

We see it today. Money = freedom. You buy things with money. Therefore, buying more things means you're freer. But as a result of consumerist theories, commodities have become cyphers - or shadows - of a life we want for ourselves: we want the exciting life that is alluded to in advertising, or products, but increasingly our desire for that life is obstructed, or replaced, by commodities. We become slaves to objects, rather than free agents pursuing authentic liberation. (Some people think this is alright. I don't.)

Consumerism is wedded to economic and political liberalism. It's very difficult to repel consumerism - to convince people of its dangers - because it's situated within this broader discourse. Because commodity desire is so affective - meaning people feel it so strongly in their bodies, like religion - it's hard to wrest people from their sense that it is liberation when it's the opposite.

For example, increasingly in Ireland car drivers see driving as a 'right' rather than a 'privilege', or something in between. The emotional connection between an internal combustion engine on wheels and freedom is so strong now. While cars are useful instruments, they have costs, and embody an entire ideology (not to mention environmental impact). At the extreme end are SUVs, which are succesful not because they're good cars, or neccesary, but because they satisfy psychological needs that are elicited by car companies by making people feel insecure.

To me, consumerism = ideology. "Is consumerism a lifestyle choice?" I think this ideology is contained within the question. It's vital to examine the nature of choice within this state of affairs.

Is consumerism a philosophy? It's derived from philosophies. But as always, philosophies are really condensations of people doing stuff - consumerism within liberal capitalism is an ideology because when you look at how people think and act and reproduce those thoughts and actions, their relations of power, it's what emerges.

Nice one, good post.
You could also add that today people accept going to war to "defend our way of life".