Monday, December 7, 2015
"Self care" and consumerism
I touched on some of these points a few weeks ago when I wrote about people who convince themselves that the more expensive cosmetics they buy are objectively better--or even that they themselves are better for buying them. Part of this attitude, I think, relates to a current cultural idea that we all "deserve" luxury in some form. Maybe we can't all live in huge houses, but we are still "good enough" to deserve a Tom Ford lipstick. This type of thinking is intimately connected to the self-care imperative that is becoming more and more widespread, no longer limited to Tumblr and xoJane. While I think self care is a valuable concept in some ways--especially for women, who have been taught that we have to keep on top of everything and be responsible for others in addition to, or instead of, ourselves--"self care" and "treat yourself!" have become nearly synonymous, in a creepy but unsurprisingly capitalist way. Rather than looking after ourselves by taking an hour to sit peacefully in our bedrooms reading a book, we should just buy a bottle of nail polish. There's a lot more I could say about this, but this article in The Atlantic already says it. It is very worth reading (and short!). Interestingly enough, it actually quotes Jane Marie (formerly) of Millihelen on why self care seems unachievable.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I guess that's where "retail therapy" sprang from. Personally I never used the term "self care" until recently when I started moving away from fast and excessive consumerism. Part of my self care routine is NOT shopping and preserving funds for better long-term use. It's weird - we all know this but at some point it gets all so cloudy in in the head and next thing you know we're buying 10 nail polishes in an attempt to relax.
ReplyDeleteYes, good point! And buying things is much easier than any other kind of therapy, most of the time. I am certainly not immune to the idea that, because I worked hard on something, I "deserve" to buy myself a reward. Meanwhile I would benefit a whole lot more from doing yoga or something for 30 min.
DeleteOne of my academic interests is the development of the modern concept of leisure, so this article is really fascinating to me. The principal reason for my no-buy was to get away from the capitalistic sense of self-care. At the same time, surely *all* concepts of self-care are rooted in capitalism? If you can't trust the state or your society to care for you, you have to care for yourself. I'm not a card-carrying Marxist, but beauty blogging has made me think a lot more critically about why we spend money on beauty. Some people simply don't have energy or the leisure time to read a book, but almost everyone has the time to impulse-buy a new lipstick at Sephora or CVS.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, this is a systemic problem more than it is an individual one, so I can't fault people for the occasional emotional purchase. But I do think we should all realize how much more stuff we own than earlier generations did, and how our consumption is affecting the planet.
I think that's one of the excellent points in the article--that capitalism created the problem and then created the sinister solution. I don't fault individual people for acting this on this imperative, though I do wish more of us could be self critical, and that's something I try to work on in myself. (I realize the potential for hypocrisy in posting things like this and then posting about makeup sales. Though to me they are related in the sense of minimizing unnecessary spending.) It's a lot more painful to be introspective than just to buy something pretty! And, as you say, it takes less energy and time, and we are all supposed to be productive and efficient. Foucault's version of leisure, at least as it is presented here, seems almost aristocratic, something that isn't really possible in this culture.
DeleteI can't fault anyone for not pursuing "active leisure" because it is definitely a class issue. Comparatively cheap thrills are a lot more accessible than free time if you need to work, say, 60 hours a week to get by. This article is extremely interesting but I'm kind of disappointed it leaves out structural inequality in its discussion of self care. It's very easy to say "active leisure" time is "not impossible to carve out" if you're imagining an existence where basic necessities are rarely in question. Treating yourself is absolutely a capitalist buy-in, but it's also a way of treating yourself as better (even if only financially) than your situation. How many people go minimalist without having some experience of excess?
DeleteYes, this has been part of a conversation I've been having about this article elsewhere too, i.e. that while it's an important observation, it's not likely to change, especially not by individuals acknowledging that they can have leisure or something like that. I think that many of us who can choose the form our self care takes (like myself--I don't make much money but I have some free time, since I don't have to look after a family) still choose buying things, because it's easier. People are buying in, regardless of class/income.
DeleteBeing a psychotherapist, I can tell you selfcare is not about spending money on yourself per se. I agree buying a Tom Ford lipstick is not selfcare. Thats just you blowing money (whether you have it or not isn't the point. You still spent it). Self care is about taking time out to de-stress in order to avoid a mental breakdown or burnout.
ReplyDeleteI do agree, lately its about how much money you can spend on yourself that will dictate the level of happiness you get out of selfcare which is utter nonsense. Selfcare for me is doing things like reading a book, watching a movie, seeing my friend etc. Taking time out to do things that will make me happy and not have to worry about work, my patients, the house etc. However spending $70cdn bucks on a TF lipstick isn't selfcare in my opinion. Its fucking stressful cause now I am 70 bucks out!!!
Definitely. Ideally, that would be what self care would be. But so often we're presented with a version of it that requires purchasing accessories, like a ritual where you need a nice candle and a body lotion and to get your nails done, etc.
DeleteReally interesting read. Thanks for sharing! One of the ways in which I've learned to practice self-care is by saying no more often and not obligating myself to do things that I really don't want to do, specifically outside of work. I have no shame in using the time I have to read online articles and blogs, sometimes books, and just watching TV to decompress and zone out. Some might see that as me being lazy, and I've had people say that I don't get out enough and that I should be doing more. But, this is what I see as self-care and it's meaningful to me.
ReplyDeleteThat's great! I do think it's important to know our limits and to look after ourselves. But when self care becomes advertising lingo, it's frustrating.
DeleteI think the reason we (as a society) came to equate "self-care" and "treating ourselves" is that we lost the distinction between "wants" and "needs". Marketing shouts at us "you need the newest phone", "this makeup pallet is a must-have", and we start thinking that this is what we need. And we strive to make enough money to afford all those things. As article mentions, modern workplace keeps getting more demanding, especially in a larger and busier cities. This is part of the reason I left New York. Working 60 hour weeks and dealing with insane commute just didn't seem sustainable. Of course not every job is that demanding even in New York, but every meaningful and decently compensated position I ever held was. This brings me to the point that Auxiliary Beauty mentioned - when people don't have time to actual self-care they start compensating by buying stuff. I'm leaving testament to that - my last job left me with very little time and energy for things that I actually consider "self-care", and my makeup/nail polish collection increased exponentially during that time. I know I would've benefited from a walk outside, yoga class, reading a book in a comfortable chair or just getting extra hour of sleep, but those things take time. Buying something online takes five minutes and next to no energy. I'm not making excuses for myself, just reflecting on my experience.
ReplyDeleteTo me true self-care means taking care of my actual needs - making sure I have basic necessaries, like food, shelter, weather-appropriate cloths; making sure that my stress levels are kept in check; making sure that any health issues (existing or potential) are managed, etc, but it's very easy to loose sight of these things when something far more exiting calling. The only way to fight these tendencies is to be mindful of them. And is not going to work 100% of the time, but it makes a huge difference.
I think that looking after your health is especially important and an interesting point in this context. There's something fucked up about a country where it's easier and cheaper to buy an overpriced piece of makeup than to get medical help. Retail therapy, again! Simpler to "treat ourselves" than to look after our basic needs! Especially since self care is often mentioned as a way to protect mental health, but it should be a supplement to healthcare, not a substitute.
DeleteGetting medical help for mental issues is still stigmatized (I don't think it applies only to US), while retail therapy is encouraged by the society. "Are you sad/anxious/depressed? Don't be! Let's go by you a new bag/dress/makeup/whatever or let's go get our nail/hair done". How often do we hear that in one form or another? And we play along because it's easier and more pleasant than dealing with roots of those feelings or just accepting them. There are things that will make us feel some kind of way, and that's part of life. Our society is very driven to be happy, being miserable is frowned upon, and this drives us to seek quick fixes (like retail therapy).
DeleteThis is really sad state of affairs.
Love the post and the article. I think its quite insidious that the people who suffer most from this kind of marketing are likely to be lower income eg convinced that they need to buy a tom ford lipstick once they come into some mone precisely because they cant afford one now and they need to treat themselves.
ReplyDeleteI dont think people 'deserve' nice or luxury things at all. I'm quite comfortable and i still choose to buy housebrand groceries. I dont think I'm being shortchanged in any way, but the perception that living a comfortable life involves spending loads of money persists. consumerism is very sad phenomenon, really.