Tolstoy and Conspicuous Consumption

Tolstoy's account of the life and death of Ivan Illych questions the relationship between conspicuous consumption and well-being. He poses the problem in the following manner. If one consumes conspicuously his whole life, will it contribute to his well-being, and did he live a good life? In Tolstoy's mind, the answer lies in a fundamental difference in perception. A view of one's life that is only concerned with the material at the expense of other, more meaningful goods, is not only a bad life, but harmful to one's own well-being. The purpose of this analysis is to examine how this could be. However, Tolstoy's criticisms have not gone unchallenged. Robert Frank offers an explanation in human psychology and evolution for why we consume conspicuously. What this challenge is, and what it means for Tolstoy's criticism will be the focus of the second portion of this essay.

Conspicuous consumption can best be defined as the practice of consuming material goods (typically luxurious or excessive goods) for the purpose of conveying relative social wealth or success. In the case of Ivan Illych, this pursuit defines his entire adult life. He views the world around him as having only instrumental value. This includes the people around him: family, friends, and colleagues. Throughout his life, Illych focuses his energies on achieving relative high social status. This mindset influences all his importance decisions. However, because of this, he never experiences any meaningful relation to his job, family, friends, colleagues, and even himself. Since these things possess only instrumental value (as opposed to inherent/innate value), Illych's relationship with them is superficial, empty, and meaningless.

The attention spent on conveying appearances of relative wealth doesn't seem to pose much of a problem for Ivan Illych until he is confronted with an injury that will inevitably cause his death. After this injury, when he is more or less immobilized and confined to his bed, Illych experiences devastating feelings of loneliness, misery, frustration, immense pain, and abandonment. Nobody but his servant seems to care that he is in agony. Upon realizing that he is going to die, Ivan Illych undergoes a radical transformation. In a climatic turn of events, he experiences (for the first time in his adult life) a real emotional bond with someone, which in turn revolutionizes his perception of what really matters in life. He now accepts that he's pursued artificial ends that have prevented him from forming meaningful, fulfilling relationships - something Tolstoy holds as one of the objective goods necessary for well-being.

Tolstoy's criticism of conspicuous consumption is quite simple. Such pursuits of the material distract one from pursuing the internal, spiritual goods. Tolstoy believes that thinking of oneself only in purely subjective terms is harmful. That's why Ivan Illych was so terrified of his own mortality; he was thinking in the subjective. This problem intensifies when Ivan starts to question the value of his life, and whether or not it was the right life to live. The resolution of this problem comes from his finally recognizing his life was a contradiction. He resolves this contradiction only moments before his death through the recognition of the objective good. Upon realizing and internalizing the knowledge of his own death, he is able to accept that he has lived an artificial life. He understands that he pursued the wrong ends, and that they prevented him from attaining the objective good. The pursuit of relative success is neither important nor beneficial. It caused Illych a great amount of pain and anguish. It prevented him from pursuing the objectively true goods which should have defined his life. For Tolstoy, this represents a contradiction for human beings who see themselves solely in subjective terms, and renders conspicuous consumption a harmful set of values opposed to one's own well-being. Tolstoy's criticism of conspicuous consumption holds that human beings have the power to change this and capable of living a good life. Such a life requires the satisfaction of certain objective standards though, and the ability to transcend the purely subjective desires one has for oneself. This view has spawned some criticism. One objection has been raised by Robert Frank, who offers another account of conspicuous consumption.

In the chapter "Why Context and Position Are So Important," Robert Frank argues that viewing life in terms of relative success, which lends itself to conspicuous consumption, is naturally ingrained within human psychology. Frank offers evidence to substantiate his claim, which further argues that the human tendency to view one's self and accomplishments relative to others has an evolutionary basis. The evolutionary importance of high status is a naturally occurring tendency within our species, and can be traced back genealogically to our primitive ancestors. This plays out in modern society through conspicuous consumption. Since conspicuous consumption can be defined as consuming goods for the demonstration of relative success, then it follows that these behaviors exist are biologically determined and not simply a choice or adoption of particular values. As human beings we desire high relative social status and the most efficient means of satisfying this desire is to consume conspicuously.

This poses an objection to Tolstoy's account of well-being because it explains our tendencies towards living a materialistic, consumer based life as an evolutionary and natural one. If this is the case, it would be extremely difficult to try and curb this human trait. Likewise, Frank describes this as a collective action problem. Essentially there is no way out of this for the individual without sacrificing an innate desire to achieve more in relation to others. Frank acknowledges this is both wasteful and harmful to individuals and society. Trying to alter biologically inclined traits is difficult and potentially harmful to the individual, and morally questionable when attempted by society. The only hope, according to Frank, is for society to try and ameliorate some of the more harmful effects these practices have on us, rather than their rejection.

This objection poses a threat to Tolstoy's account, but presents some problems of its own. The evidence supporting Frank's claim depend on the difficult task of demonstrating evolutionary psychology as it is reflected in current trends and practices. Likewise, it is difficult in constructing a causal relationship between our behavior and its being coded into our brains. Thus, the objection can be mitigated on the grounds that Frank hasn't clearly or conclusively argued that conspicuous consumption results from innate human tendencies, since it rests on a lot of speculation about human nature. Unless more substantial evidence can be provided to determine whether or not high relative social status is an innate rather than conditioned trait, the strength of this objection is decreased significantly. If Frank is wrong, then Tolstoy's criticisms of conspicuous consumption are still valid.