ON THE CONCEPT OF VOLUNTARY SIMPLICITY TOWARDS MARKETING
Boutheina BENGAMRA-ZINELABIDINE
Assistant professor
University of Manouba, TUNISIA
ABSTRACT
This research aims to explain the concept of voluntary simplicity: it’s not very well known by the practitioners and theoreticians of management in general and marketing in particular, and offers the possibility of thinking and questioning the finality of marketing as a discipline. This research purports to shed light on the reasons urging individuals to adopt a minimisation-behaviour in consumption. The aim is to understand the evolution of behaviour in
consumption, following the societal mutations pertaining to the relationship of
the individual with time, money, self-perception and even the others.
The study of the concept of voluntary simplicity bears a dual interest. On the one hand, the
concept is not very well known by the practitioners and theoreticians of management in
general and marketing in particular. Indeed, the studies in the field are not well developed.
Wells (1993) bears witness, asserting that researchers have carried out too many investigations on the ―purchase behaviour‖ and the ―decision processes‖ in terms of the
acquisition of material goods. Studies relating to frugality, voluntary simplicity and giving
up purchase are significantly lacking. The existing ones are relatively recent. Research on
voluntary simplicity is as follows: twenty-six studies were carried out between 1973 and
1994 and thirty-two between 1995 and 1998. Such figures thus show the growing interest
in this trend of thought (Zavestoski, 2002).
On the other hand, the concept of voluntary simplicity offers the possibility of thinking and questioning the finality of marketing as a discipline, for it seems very little compatible, if not
outright contradictory, with the marketing approach. Is the latter not a response to the
needs and wishes expressed by customers? ―The mission of marketing consists in defining
appropriate promises and seeing to it that customers are satisfied.‖ (Kotler and Dubois,
2003, p. 29).
If such be the case, voluntary simplicity seems too far away from the concern of marketing
which aims at satisfying the existence of customers composed of distributors and
consumers, as well as the constraint of profit. In times of economic crisis, i.e. in a deeply changing environment, the concept of marketing must also change. The emphasis is put on
the economically-biased variables against the psychologically-inclined variables, such as
media commercials. The advertising landscape in France, for example, has deeply changed,
since 1973. The basic promises, the arguments justifying such promises, the desired trade
images, and the tone of the publicity campaigns must meet the expectations of the new consumers. The creative content of the message pertaining to the positioning of the trade
marks expresses the concern for re-centring.
It is therefore useful and desirable to shed light on the debate on the crisis to clarify the
meaning of ―consumption,‖ ―consumer society,‖ and ―mass consumption‖ because these
terms are often used in different manners in the literature (Schor, 1998, p. 217).
www.ajbms.org Asian Journal of Business and Management Sciences
In economic terms, consumption means any monetary expense, whereas the consumer
society appears only when the discretionary income is not simply the monopoly of the rich
and well-off classes but becomes a mass phenomenon. In the latter sense, the term ―consumerism‖, faced with voluntary simplicity, appears as both an ideology, i.e. a set of
beliefs and a way of living: ―Consumption may be considered as both morals (a system of
ideological values) and a system of communication, a structure for exchange.‖ (Baudrillard,
1970).
According to historians, consumerism, meant as an ideology of consumption, is not a new
phenomenon. Born with the advent of the industrial revolution, the trend appears as an
institution in 18th century England and has continued until late in this century, through
the initiatives of Robert Owen and Jeremy Bentham (Mc Kendrick et al., 1982). It also came to the fore in 18th century France, with the co-operative movement aiming at emancipating
the working classes (Dubuisson-Quellier, 2009, pp. 18-35).
Its development is thus associated with mass consumption, which started in the United
States in the 1920s, and to the ideological belief in the continuous growth of economic
production (Schor, 1998, p. 217). Economic and industrial progress entails the spread of
new means of communication such as the media publicity and the power of sale. Publicity
then grows through the rationalisation of the sources of information, and is accompanied by the set back of fatalism, animism and superstition (Simon, 1970, chapter 7). This trend
reaches its climax in the 1960s, characterised by a quasi-uninterrupted economic growth.
The period, coinciding with the ―Glorious Thirties‖ thus consecrates the triumph of
consumerism.
An original way of understanding the interest of the concept of voluntary simplicity for a
marketing approach is to confront it the different approaches of the consumerist movement.
Such a confrontation shows that voluntary simplicity is radically set apart, owing to its origins, motivations, life style and practices, and to its perception of the relationships
between the individual and the environment.
This research purports to shed light on the reasons urging individuals to adopt a
minimisation-behaviour in consumption. The aim is to understand the evolution of
behaviour in consumption, following the societal mutations pertaining to the relationship of
the individual with time, money, self-perception and even the others.
THE IMPLICIT MODEL OF VOLUNTARY SIMPLICITY
It is now clear that the concept owes nothing to mathematics, physics, or biology. It does
not bear either any economic nature, for the individual can neither discover their identity,
nor accomplish themselves, through the possession of material goods or the exercise of
body games. Seeking authenticity is impossible to achieve through production or the consumption of goods. For Marx, man is alienated in the capitalist system because he can
neither create himself through what he produces nor define himself by what he produces,
insofar as he remains ―alienated‖, i.e. separated from what he produces. Likewise, for the
proponents of voluntary simplicity, man cannot create himself, nor define himself, through
and by what he consumes, because the consumption of material goods separates him from
an authentic life, makes him alien to himself. It begets stress, agitation, a malaise resulting
from the culture of consumption (Zavetoski, 2002, p. 154).
The model is not akin to political sciences either, even though the theme appeared in USA, some fifteen years ago, through various works inspired by Hirschman‘s socio-political
paradigm (Penaloza and Price, 1993). They purport to integrate and understand the
multiplicity of consumption acts in terms of loyalty, voice and exit. In France, similar works
also adopted the reference framework of the analysis of the consumers‘ behaviour and
presented voluntary simplicity as a form of resistance or activism on the part of consumers towards mercantile economy: a mode of political commitment through consumption (Roux,
2007, p. 65 & Dubuisson-Quellier, 2008, p. 102).
www.ajbms.org Asian Journal of Business and Management Sciences
The concept is however miles away from consumer militancy (Elgin, 1993, p. 28). It is also
alien to the socio-political paradigm, the consumer‘s behaviour paradigm, which both
misunderstand the effect of synergy between the individual and society. It is first and
foremost an ethics, an individual and social art of living.
Maslow‘s theory of motivations may probably better account for the behaviour of the proponents of voluntary simplicity (Maslow, 2006 and 2008; Etzioni, 1998; Zavestoski,
2002 and Huneke, 2005). Together with animals, human beings are rooted in physiological
and security needs. Once those needs are fulfilled, new ones emerge: love and
accomplishment.
The model contests modernity, always presented as a sign of novelty owing to the
astounding breakthroughs of sciences and techniques. Indeed, the scientific and
productivistic perspective induces a concept of doing which values the producer, Promethean man. It rests on a particular perception of human nature, a vision of man, of
the world, his relationship with the cosmos, which has impregnated human sciences,
including marketing. In such a dualistic vision, the physical world is perceived as a
mechanical and rational set governed by the rules of optimal efficiency.
The concept also contests the post-modernity logic marked by the privilege granted to
cocooning, to the past and the present rather than to the future (telling stories), to the
social imaginary of consumption. The 1990s consumer had progressively drifted away from
the traditional models and norms of consumerism and communication (Rochefort, 1995).
The values that the concept of voluntary simplicity extols amount to four:
1. The search for material simplicity, consisting of voluntarily limiting our individual
consumption. It is first and foremost the business of each one of us, the individual
choice of a lifestyle, based on moderate consumption and energy saving, consuming fewer clothes, less fashion items. Seeking a minimal consumption that meets basic
needs, keeping aloof from over-consumption instead of waiting for public authorities
to take measures destined to protect the economic interest of the consumers.
2. Taking one‘s distance from macro-institutions, mainly huge firms, to devote oneself
to a local- and human-scale life style. Schumacher‘s book Small is Beautiful, written in 1973, is a good illustration of this search of proximity as the key value of
voluntary simplicity. Better choose human-size institutions, rather than complex
and impersonal structures, thus curtailing one‘s dependency. Why seek in collective
interventions geared to impersonal and bureaucratic institutions what one can get
in one‘s close environment? Happiness is always at arm‘s reach (Shaw and
Newholm, 2002). 3. Self-determination is a virtue. It expresses the will of an individual to exercise a
greater control of his or her personal fate. It liberates them of material,
administrative, financial and media constraints. This is why some authors defined
voluntary simplicity as ―the degree by which an individual consciously chooses to
change their way of life with a view to maximising the individual control of one‘s own life.‖ (Léonard Barton & Rogers, 1979, p. 28; Léonard Barton, 1981, pp. 8 and 243-
51).
4. Another essential dimension of the concept is the ecological awareness, i.e. the
acknowledgement of the existence of not only interdependence but also of the
harmony of the individual with nature. Understanding that man is part of a whole,
the need to live harmoniously with nature – such are the tokens of spiritual openness. They create a feeling of responsibility and solidarity with others. They are
at the basis of the awareness of sustainable development.
In other words, there exist many ways to conceive of responsibility, that is an ethical
behaviour, depending on whether one analyses the social consequences of action, at the
level of the individual, the citizen or the planet.
The Individual‘s behaviour is socially responsible when ―it takes into account the public
consequences of their private consumption‖ (Webster, 1975). For example, cars, cigarettes
www.ajbms.org Asian Journal of Business and Management Sciences
and alcohol are products whose use is desirable and pleasant in the short term; in the long
run, they may have unpleasant and obnoxious effects on the health of an individual, and of
society at large. Responsibility calls on social ethics borne by the individual as a consumer.
There is another form of responsibility resting on the ethics of citizenship. It consists in
buying sharing-products also called ethical products, ―green‖ products or fair-trade products (Thierry, 2004). In those examples, ―the individual takes into account the public
consequences of his private consumption and uses his purchasing power to induce changes
in society‖ (Webster, 1975; François-Lecompte & Valette-Florence, 2006).
There also is a third form of responsibility peculiar to the concept of voluntary simplicity. It
is based on an environmental ethics. It is ecologically tuned for it concerns the future of the
planet and the survival of humanity (Jonas, 1995).
However, this school of thought is also inspired by a long history and a rich tradition that
need to be reminded of.
THE HISTORY OF VOLUNTARY SIMPLICITY
The concept of voluntary simplicity is not new. It was considered for a long time as the
prerogative of religious communities insofar as they adopted as a way of life founded on
self-sufficiency, the independence of the individual from external calls: the Jewish Shabbat,
Jesus message of poverty or Ramadan for the Muslims. Gandhi‘s life was a perfect example: his simplicity was a real political tool that allowed him to peacefully free his country of
British colonisation. His well-known slogan was ―live more simply for others to simply live.‖
The concept is thus a living reminiscence of the teaching of religious leaders (Léonard-
Barton and Rogers, 1979, p. 28).
It also helps us re-discover the virtue of moderation, what Epicurus called ―happy
moderation.‖ The latter should not be confused with frugality. According to the Webster
Dictionary, frugality is ―economy in the use or acquisition of money, goods and supply of all sorts. The reduction of unduly expenses of money and all other goods, that are used or
consumed. Frugality thus implies the measured use of money and goods, but also of time.‖
However, simplicity or ―frugality‖ does not mean ―asceticism.‖ An ascetic voluntarily
deprives himself of the pleasures of material life in order to devote himself to more intensive
spiritual life. A frugal person seeks pleasure or satisfaction but by means other than those
offered by the consumer society. The fundamental principle is to seek simplification to
improve one‘s quality of life (Bruckner, 2002).
Frugality does not mean avarice, either; such as that shown by Harpagon, by the desire to
accumulate money, to consider it as a value per se, just for the sake of accumulating money
and unwilling to spend it (Norberg, 2005). Frugality consists in living better with fewer material constraints. It entails seeking a quality of life based on the relinquishment of the
material gadgets and artefacts of the consumer society. Those gadgets and artefacts are
heavy, embarrassing, cumbersome, and prevent you from stretching out your intellectual
and spiritual capacities. The idea is to opt for participatory creativity rather than passive
consumption.
The analysis of the concept has evolved. Zavestoski (2002) carried out content analyses on
research on the concept between 1973 and 1998. He notes that for the studies of the period between 1973 and 1995, the spiritual and religious aspect of simplicity, reference to the
virtues of simplicity are prevailing. After 1995, research emphasised the stress of people,
their wish to give meaning to their consumption and to design strategies aimed at
simplifying their way of life.
Frugality is therefore more than a concept; it is an ideology, a state of mind that has always
existed, since Epicurus already recommended it in Antiquity. He extolled the idea of
pleasure in simple things of life, such as sharing a meal among friends. According to him,
wealth and prestige are a form of social alienation, more a source of evil than pleasure.
www.ajbms.org Asian Journal of Business and Management Sciences
In the current study, we assimilate ―frugality‖ and ―voluntary simplicity‖, with reference to
Craig-Lees and Hill (2002), who defined voluntary simplicity as a life style implying
practices of frugality, in relation to an individual‘s spiritual and mental well-being and to
his environment.
Voluntary simplicity is an expression which was first found in 1936, in an article by Gregg Richard, a disciple of Gandhi, who took up his main ideas. The article had an impact only
when it was republished in 1974, and the expression voluntary simplicity was reinstated in
1981, with the publication of Duane Elgin‘s book, printed in the USA in 1981. Therefore,
the current has developed since the 1980s in many Western countries, mainly in the USA,
where a few researchers marked their interest in the concept.
Léonard-Barton and Rogers (1979) defined it as the degree by which an individual
consciously chooses a kind of life, with the aim of maximising his individual controls. An individual who shows a relatively high degree of voluntary simplicity will seek to minimise
his dependence on the institutions he cannot control, and maximise his harmony with
nature. It is the way whereby commitment gradually takes place and is measured by degree
(Léonard-Barton and Rogers, 1979). It is an empirical tool that helps better understand the
purchase behaviour and the usage value of products (Lastovicka et al., 1999).
Society is now ordered by the relation time/money. The individual has the feeling to lack
time and money and thus feels stressed because he is socially valued only vis-à-vis his
material wealth. It urges people to invest in what is offered by society and thus find the artefacts for their accomplishment and self-realisation (Braudillard, 1970). This state of
affairs seems to be fundamentally opposed to spiritualism, essentialism but also to
frugality.
The concept has been defined by researchers (Léonard-Barston and Rogers, 1979; Ensley,
1983; Crowles and Crosby, 1986; Lastovicka et al., 1999) as soberness, simplicity, modesty,
as well as singularity of intentions, sincerity and honesty, relinquishing external disorders
of many possessions, unnecessary to the ultimate goal of life: ―He who knows better how to
do without them enjoys riches most‖ (De Finibus, Cicero).
“VOLUNTARY SIMPLICITY” Vs. “CONSUMERISM”
―Defined simply, consumerism is an organised movement of private people and people in
charge of public authority concerned by the defence of the rights of the buyer against those of the vendor‖ (Kotler, 1976, p. 483). It developed in the USA in the 1970s, with the support
of more and more educated consumers.
This is why the supporters of the movement behave in a different manner from others, vis-
à-vis marketing. They demand truth on all the elements of the marketing mix: price,
product, the packaging lay out at the point of sale, publicity. The movement expresses the
need for information on the product and calls for the enhancement of regulatory and
legislative measures with a view to ensuring the protection of the consumers. The ultimate objective is thus to protect the interests of the consumers (Cohen, 2004, p. 360). Aaker and
Day (1978, pp. 2-18) have shown that the claims of the consumerist movement have
triggered the regulatory measures imposed by the public authorities in the 1970s.
The constraints and rules of conduct provide for the protection of consumers, children,
private persons, citizens, and language. This important development reached its climax in
France through the 1976 Law that allows associations to sue for damages (Ladwein, 2003,
p. 12). In a certain way, the movement, through its commitment, reasserts the social
responsibility of the buyer vis-à-vis the vendor. The consumer is defined as he who takes
into account the public consequences of his private consumption (Webster, 1975, p. 188).
Besides, an exploratory analysis of the content of the important articles published in the
USA on consumerism and marketing shows that publicity is constantly cited as the primary
and fundamental source of the consumer‘s dissatisfaction. Aaker and Day have shown that
such dissatisfaction was born in the 1960s, with the third wave of consumerism. It is
www.ajbms.org Asian Journal of Business and Management Sciences
related to deep causes: the consumers‘ disillusionment with the proliferation of information
which satisfies little or unsatisfactorily their need for information, while reinforcing the
intensity of such a need, the important part of publicity deemed as false and deceitful, the impersonality of big businesses and the public administration, the presence of
disadvantaged or marginalised consumers (Aaker and Day, 1978, pp. 2-18).
This is why, beyond the protection referring to the rights of the individual, as a buyer
possibly threatened by the unfair trade practices of the firms, the second objective is to re-
orient the government measures in the interest of the public, in order to ensure progress for
all.
Finally, the last but not least objective consists on taking into account the existence of
disadvantaged citizens (Cohen, 2004, p. 355). Vance Packard (1957) and Galbraith (1964)
had already denounced the new manipulation techniques devised in mass publicity. Herbert Marcuse (1964) attacked the capitalism that tends to alienate man into consuming.
Yet the new element in the 1970s is the inequality of individuals in the fields of protection,
information, consumption and education.
In the field of information, publicity is also exposed through the ideological aspects of the
messages it conveys. In its classical form it marginalises certain social groups who have no
possibility of expressing themselves because they are part of a social minority: manual
workers, immigrants, prisoners, the poor, prostitutes, women and children. The image of
women it conveys, either in commercials for washing powder --where they are shown as a stubborn character doomed to routine chores-- or in commercials for liquors and perfume --
where they are shown as sexual objects—is deemed more and more unbearable.
In the field of consumption, an important article in The Journal of Marketing, published in
July 1970, identifies the ―new visibility of disadvantaged consumers.‖ There is no equality of
consumers in the face of the price or distribution of a product ‗Aaker and Day, 1970, p. 18).
The education of consumers aims at making the individual autonomous, that is, more able
to take care of him- or herself. It relates to the necessary level of education which enables
consumers to make intelligent choices, mainly in terms of purchasing. However, all consumers do not enjoy the educational level that allows them to make well thought out
and wise purchases of goods and services.
Pressure put by consumerism leads the proponents of Marketing-Management to evolve.
―My opinion,‖ writes Ph. Kotler ―is that consumerism is sustainable, useful, pro marketing, and that, finally, it generates profit‖ (1972, pp. 48-57). The author of Marketing Management is thus led to broaden the concept of marketing and take into account the
notion of the well-being of consumers, of satisfying their sustainable needs (Kotler, 1973, p.
26).
In France, as in the United States, thinking about the ideological and cultural behaviour of
consumption refers to the weaknesses of mass communication and the deficiencies of big
businesses.
The proponents of voluntary simplicity are equally close to the consumerist approach. They also denounce the exposure to the television commercials messages of the quasi-totality of
households in USA. They express their doubt as to the credibility of commercially oriented
messages, i.e. those funded and signed by the advertisers themselves, either in the media
or through the vendors‘ action. Such messages are perceived as means of manipulation,
because of their very commercial origin. In that sense, consumerists and the extollers of voluntary simplicity concur with the classical criticisms of publicity: it sells illusion
(Packard, 1957 and Galbraith, 1970). Likewise, the socio-demographic profile of the
voluntary simplicity defenders is quite close to that of the consumerists: an educational
level higher than that of US average population. Over 65% among them hold a degree
crowning at least four years of secondary education (Huneke, 2005; Zavestoski, 2002;
Pierce, 2000; Elgin and Mitchell, 1977). The average annual income of the voluntary simplicity supporters ranges from $ 45,000 to $ 100,000. It is therefore higher than that of
US average population.
www.ajbms.org Asian Journal of Business and Management Sciences
Here end the similarities. Voluntary simplicity followers do not feel in any acute way the
need to regulate it, to call on public authorities to protect the consumers. They do not
suffice with blaming the excesses of publicity. Criticism is not only of technical nature. It is by nature existential, i.e. more radical. The problem with publicity is that it generally aims
at urging people to consume. It is interested in exchange and profit, in trade values. It has
no interest for non-trade values. It is not interested in life, conscience, culture, the values of
security and the individual‘s self-realisation. In that sense, it carries us away from our deep
aspirations.
The pro-voluntary simplicity people are also radically different from, on the one hand,
political consumerism presented as a new form of trans-national governance (Micheletti,
2004) and, on the other hand, the movement of activists seeking in consumption a cultural and ideological change, the transformation of a capitalist society (Marcuse, 1968; Kosinets
and Handelman, 2004). For them, consumption is not a neutral activity as far as the social,
political, moral and cultural values are concerned.
Actually, a brief overview of the literature shows that, in the context of the analysis of
consumption, behaviour is heterogeneous:
Some individuals are so much involved in their acquisition approach that they consider the possession of material goods as an ―extension of the self‖ (Belk, 1988).
Well-being is measured in relation to what they own and the accumulation of
material riches is perceived as a token of social success (Richins, 1994; Richins and
Dawson, 1992). Apart from improving daily life, material goods ―contribute in structuring their identity‖ (Ladwein, 2001).
Others, on the contrary, show minimisation behaviour in consumption (Fournier, 1998; Roux, 2006):
- Either by an economy of material resources initiated by recuperation and second
hand purchase practices
- Or for ethical purposes that urge individuals to work for the reorganisation of
their consumption (consume ‗green‘; Shaw and Newholm, 2002).
- Or again through their wish to live simply, to give up artefacts and adopt a simple and frugal behaviour (Léonard-Barston and Rogers, 1979; Ensley, 1983;
Crowles and Crosby, 1986; Lastovicka et al., 1999).
Voluntary simplicity can also be considered as a genuine research trend in the face of
hyper-consumerism and the materialism of the consumer society. The supporters of that
trend adopt minimisation behaviour in consumption, a life style based on frugal practices.
Following the above analyses, and by way of conclusion, one must wonder about the
contribution of the voluntary simplicity concept in the status of marketing, particularly in
times of crisis.
THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE CONCEPT IN TIMES OF CRISIS
In the past four decades, France has gone through at least three acute economic crises. For
each of these crises -- 1973, 1990 and 2008--, one could note the resurgence of ‗frugality
values‘ in opinion polls and in the communication policies of big businesses.
In 1973, the global oil crisis triggers in consumers an acute awareness of the scarcity of
natural resources, of the necessity of avoiding squandering such resources. The theme of
voluntary simplicity is then expressed via the publicity campaigns of banks, the car industry and beverages. The campaigns exalted the virtue of common sense, moderation,
social sharing, pleasure and happiness, the ―real things in life.‖ It is as if publicity and
marketing had to be saved by the crisis.
In the 1990s, various polls conducted with consumers bear witness of the concerns and
insecurity yielded by the Gulf War, the fear of diseases (cancer, ‗mad cow disease‘, and
AIDS), economic recession (Rochefort, 1995), the job market degradation, the rise of long
term unemployment hitting both young people without any professional experience and old
www.ajbms.org Asian Journal of Business and Management Sciences
workers –all such elements help emphasise the weakness of social bonds. Thus, there is a
big demand on the part of consumers in a society dominated by fear and worries,
accounting for the deep causes of the strong commitment of businesses in the environmental and social fields. ―New poverty‖ appeared in the mid-1980s. As of 1993,
many large circulation works described the ―wretchedness of the world‖ (Bourdieu, 1993),
the ―economic horror‖ (Forrester, 1996; Boltanski and Chiapello, 1999).
The ―social fracture‖ entailed by the economic crisis is denounced by the public authorities
wishing to re-orient cultural patronage towards humanitarian patronage (also called
solidarity sponsorship), presented as a means to control precariousness and exclusion. The
concept of marketing drifts away from considerations of publicity and the marketing mix to
put particular emphasis on environmental and societal issues. In 1994, the CNPF even claims the concept of ―citizen firms.‖ Its goal is to assert the social responsibility of the firms
through codes of conduct and ethics charters, forms of partnerships in the guise of
product-sharing or ethical products, fair trade (Thiery, 2004). But we are still very far from
the environmental ethics of an ecological nature that concerns the future of the planet and
the survival of humanity (Jonas, 1995).
Both the 2008 crisis and the 1990 crisis witnessed a strong fall in consumption and in
household purchasing power. They also hit the industries of equipment goods and yielded significant mass unemployment. Hence the ―return to the family, the native land, the roots,
the taste for simple things, the virtues of exchanging and sharing‖, are topical (Zarachowicz,
2009). But the new element is that the tensions and disorder that marked the 1970s and
1990s have made the managerial model of the 1960s evolve towards a finance-dominated
patrimonial model. The crisis has financial origins. The stock options and the golden
parachutes of the leaders, the bonuses of the Stock Exchange traders, the deficiencies of the banks and the rating agencies –all these question the 1990s ethical behaviour and the
concept of the so-called ―citizen firm.‖
Hence this clinch question: what is the status of marketing under the pressure of these
three successive crises? How should it adapt? Marketing or de-marketing? What is the
choice? Is there a credible alternative? Is voluntary simplicity, like the phoenix, a model
that is reborn of its own ashes, at the occurrence of any economic crisis?
In this case, the voluntary simplicity concept would be nothing but a trick of history, a
model updated by the proponents of liberal economy to hide the market failures, and the
destructive effects of unbridled capitalism (Boltanski and Chiapello, 1999). To say this is to overlook that the fall in consumption does not depend on the individual as such. Nothing is
voluntary or pleasant about it. Frugality is imposed not chosen; it has nothing to do with
the virtues of moderation and balance yielded by the voluntary simplicity concept, which
remains the best introduction to sustainable development.
REFERENCES
Aaker D. A. et Day, G.S. (1978) A guide to Consumerism in Consumerism, Search for the
Consumer Interest, Collies Mac Millan, p.2-18. Baudrillard J. (1970): La societe de consummation. Essais, n35, Folio. Belk Russel W. (1988)., Possessions and the Extended Self, Journal of Consumer Research,
15, September, 139-168.
Boltanski L. et Chiapello E. (1999) Le nouvel esprit du capitalism, paris, Gallimard.
Bourdieu P. (1993) La misère du monde, Paris, Seuil.
Bruckner, Pascal (2002), Misere de la prosperite, Paris, Grasset, coll. ―145‖. Ciceron ―Des supremes biens et des supremes maux‖. De finibus, Livre III.
Cohen E.A (2004) Consumers‘ republic, The politics of Mass Consumption in Postwar
America, vintage books, Carig-Lees, M., and Hill, C.(2002), ―Understanding voluntary simplifiers‖, Psychology &
Marketing, Vol. 19(2), p. 187-210.
Dobscha S. (1998), The lived experience of consumer rebellion against marketing, in J.W. Alba et J.W. Hutchinson (coord.), Advances in Consumer Research, 25, Provo, Utah,
Association for Consumer Research, 91-97.
www.ajbms.org Asian Journal of Business and Management Sciences
Fournier S. (1998), Consumer resistance: societal motivations, consumer manifestations,
and implications in the marketing domain, in J.W. Alba et J.W.
Galbraith J.K.(1970) Lere de lopulence, Paris, Calmann Levy. Hutchinson (coord.), Advances in Consumer Research, 25, Provo, Utah, Association for
Consumer Research, 25, 88-90.
Gregg Richard (1936) Voluntary Simplicity, Visvabharati Quarterly, reprinted in Manas in
1974, op cit in Leonard-Barton (1979).
Hirschmann A.O. (1970), Exit, voice, and loyalty, Responses to declines in firms,
organizations and states, Cambridge, Harvard University Press.
Huneke Mary E.(2005) ― The face of the un-consumer: An empirical examination of the practice of voluntary simplicity in the United States‖ RSS feed for Psychology and Marketing What is RSS? Volume 22, Issue 7, Pages 527-550, Published Online: 24 May.
Jonas H. (1979) Le principe responsabilite, Paris, Champs Flammarion Kotler, Ph, (1975) Que signifie le consumerisme pour les homes de marketing? Revue
Francaise de Marketing, ler trimester 1975, p. 13-26.
Kotler et Dubois (2003) Marketing management, Pearson Education France. Kozinets R.V. et Handelman J. (2004), Adversaries of consumption: consumer movements,
activism, and ideology, Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 3, 691-704
Ladwein R. (2003): Le Comportement du Consommateur et de 1‘ Acheteur, Paris, Econoica.
Lastovicka J.L., Bettencourt L.A., Renee Shaw Hughner, kuntze R.J., (1999): Life style of the tight and frugal: theory and measurement, Journal of Consumer Research, vol 26,
june, p85-98. Leonard-Barton D. et Rogers E.M. (1979), Voluntary Simplicity, Advances in Consumer
Research, vol. 7, p. 28-34.
Marcuse H. (1968) L‘homme unidimensionnel, Paris, Editions de Minuit.
Maslow A.(2006) Etre humain, La nature humaine et sa plenitude, Paris, Eyrooles.
Maslow A.(2008) Devenir le mejlleur de soi meme, Paris, Eyrolles.
Mckendrick N. et Autres (1982) The Birth of consumer Society: The commercilisation of
Eighteen century England, Ploomington Indiana University Press. Micheletti M. (2003), Political virtue and shopping: individuals, consumerism and collective
action, New-Yark, Palgrave Macmillan.
Packard V.(1957) La persuasion clandestine, Paris, Calmann Levy.
Penaloza L. et Price L. (1993), Consumer resistance: a conceptual overview, in L. McAlister et M. Rothschild (coord.), Advances in Consumer Research, 20, Provo, Utah, Association
for Consumer Research, 123-128. Richins M.L. (1994), Valuing things: the private and the public meanings of possessions,
Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 3, 504-521.
Pierce, L.B., 2000. Choosing Simplicy. Real People Finding Peace and Fulfillment in a
Complex World. Carmel, Ca, Gallagher.
Roux D. (2007), La resistance du consommateur: proposition d‘un cadre d‘analyse, Rescherche et Applications en Marketing, vol. 22, n4
Rochefort, R.(1995), La societe de consommateurs, Paris, Odile Jacob.
Schor J. B. (1998) The Overspent American, Why we want we don‘t need, Harper Perennial.
Shaw, D., and Newholm, (2002) T, Voluntary simplicity and the ethics of consumption, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 19(2), 167-185.
Simon, J.L.(1970( Issues in the Economics of Advertising, University of Illinois Press
www.ajbms.org Asian Journal of Business and Management Sciences
