The most difficult to apply is this first statement of values.  There is no question that it is important – rabid materialism leaves many people hopelessly mired in debt – in a way that has proved destabilising for the economy as a whole as well as for individuals; it leaves us disappointed because the momentary ‘high’ of having bought something new soon wears off; it fills our drawers with junk we never use and wouldn’t miss; it leads us to direct our effort into things at the expense of people (such as more hours to at work to earn enough to keep up the lifestyle, less time for the kids); it makes us compare and compete with others, exacerbating individualism and undermining the ethos of community; and it is like trying to fill a bucket with a hole in it – hard, pointless self-defeating work.   It is especially hard on those who earn less than the average, because they will always be comparative losers in the possessions stake and must look longingly on at what ‘everyone else’ appears to have.  (Only a minority, by definition, can be ‘ahead of the game’.)  And it is particularly hard on the environment, since every product that we consume has to be manufactured, packaged, transported and, once consumed, disposed of and finally replaced.  We are learning that this materialistic existence is as empty as it is unsustainable, and yet we seem totally hooked on it.  The power of ‘image’ is so compelling… What to do?

Can a culture be changed?

The key thing is to effect a cultural change so that boasting in ‘things’ becomes so ‘last season’!  This was actually achieved (for different reasons) with the wearing of mink coats, which was once the most magnificent badge of conspicuous consumption, but is now considered to be an embarrassment.  If materialism is in fact damaging, unfair, depressing and unsustainable, then it should be widely described as such.  Flaunting the latest gadget or garment could come to be looked down on, rather than held up as the ultimate triumph.  Is it ‘looking cool’, or ‘showing off’?  Living more simply, repairing things, making do, being proud of making a little go a long way – all things that used to typify British values – could again be held in high esteem.

What made them cease to be held in high esteem?  Much that is good has come from America, including better food and some great music!  But it needs to be recognized that it was the Americanization of British culture, it was Hollywood’s constant depiction of luxury, it was the growing ‘celebrity culture’ from across the Atlantic, which combined with the impact of commercially driven advertising and the constant invitation to borrow money (thankfully, reduced at the moment).  These changed our culture radically and it is necessary now to change it back again!

A grass-roots revolution

What is needed here is a grass-roots revolution that can start to impact the opinion formers and the media.  This is beginning to happen in the field of talent-show competitions, where Paul Potts and then Susan Boyle were hugely appreciated for their talent – and aside from their looks.  It was almost as if singing was suddenly to be about singing, rather than sex appeal!  It was, in fact, a cry from the heart from millions of ordinary people that common sense and talent should outrank image and manipulation.  (The subsequent manipulation of Susan Boyle produced a counter-reaction, which led to her not winning the competition!)  The audience reaction in such shows is regularly extremely positive towards the ordinary-looking person with the great voice or other obvious talent, apparently ditching decades of indoctrination to the effect that only good-looking or ‘cool’ could or should make it.

Something quite deep-seated is trying to get out here.  We have actually all had enough.  We now need a rising tide of vocal criticism of the shallowness and fatuousness of the media industry – and the confidence to start living differently.  This is the kind of Uturn that can be people-driven.  We would like Uturn UK to be part of that vanguard, in conjunction with millions of supporters, who are willing to make a start in their own sphere – and join with us in calling for a change in the sphere of our national culture.  The loud and clear exposure of the reality of this culture of materialism will be like an Exocet missile in the side of that culture.  For it is based on illusion and an illusion exposed is an illusion exploded!

Restoring community

The manipulative trickery of adverting, concepts of 'cool' and of the celebrity culture, all thrive on the individualistic world we have created.  They create a sort of 'virtual world' in which all is glossy, fun, attractive, superficial and exciting.  Reality is kept at bay by this obsession with perfection and image.  What can prick this balloon of unreality?  Genuine community can!  After all, image can only prosper in a detached and essentially individualistic world, where the practical world of ordinary lives is put at a distance.  But community (and with it the needs and troubles of real people, who don't at all look or act like movie stars - and who have to deal with things like ingrown toenails!) brings home the 'real' all-too-quickly and helps to ground us again in the world as it is, rather than the glossy imaginings of the media.  As such, community helps to make the image machine look foolish and irrelevant.

Community also brings a sense of belonging.  So much of the need to compete materialistically is based on a need for affirmation - wanting to be liked and fearing to be isolated.  Once in real community, youngsters grow up with more of a wholesomeness that comes from belonging - a sense of security based on who they are, rather than what they have.  With that fundamental security of belonging, we all have less need to compete - and are more able to focus on the needs of other people.  Thus, in community, people really do become to us more important than things!  In many ways, then, the Street Associations initiative is speaking directly to the heart of materialism and our need to pursue it.  Real affirmation and love begin to replace the need for tokens of success - competitive measures which actually divide us off from other people.  And by bringing us into meaningful relationship with real people of all kinds (not just those 'into' our type of music, or fashion or image), there is a social context in which we are much more likely to be brought out of ourselves and become sensitive to the needs of others.

Things that last

Placing people ahead of things is primarily a matter of the heart and therefore is not principally a matter for legislation.  However, if incessant advertising (you must have this, must have that) takes advantage of people's insecurities of heart, it ends up stoking the fire of those insecurities.  It makes us feel inadequate for not having the latest gadgets or fashion items and creates appetites for things we didn't even know we wanted, let alone needed.  In other words, there is an economic imperative towards persuading us value things above people.

Is there an economic response to this economic imperative - a way of damping down those flames?  Here is one possibility - a way of changing the economics of consumption in a profound way.  A system of enforced guarantees on every non-perishable item sold in British shops could work wonders, in the same way that tougher legal requirements for higher emissions standards has made new cars far more environmentally friendly than they were[1].  As longer mandatory guarantees were phased in, manufacturers (British and foreign) would be obliged to make things that lasted, or lose out financially. 

Of course, this would put the price of goods up as they were made to last; but, over a longer period, we would all save a lot of money as (say) cars or washing machines or hi-fi systems lasted 15 years instead of three.   Even clothes (which used to last for many years, even decades, and now typically last a few months, if that) could be subject to minimum guarantees, phased in.  The result?  Not only would a lot of money be saved long-term, but the whole culture of having to have the very latest thing would peter out against the clear benefit in keeping something that had a lot of life left in it.  And seeing ‘seasoned’ products (e.g. TV, hi-fi, toaster, kitchen units etc) in people’s homes once again (because they are expensive and need to be kept for longer) would undermine the sense of expectation currently foisted upon us that we must always have this year’s model.  And what would be the environmental impact on having to replace things a fifth as often as we do now?   Incomparable.