Accusatory Consumerism
Brands in the Anthropocene and the contemporary witch hunt
Throughout history, we have nourished a complicated relationship with nature. Early humans mimicked its patterns in order to survive, while pharaohs of Ancient Egypt donned the masks of gods, claiming preternatural abilities to claim dominion over the land. Medieval Europe, gripped by both awe and fear, saw a duality in nature – a source of bounty and a canvas for the supernatural. Witch hunts became a warped attempt to control the forces they couldn't understand, a behavior also seen in our contemporary relationship with the Anthropocene.
Many pagan traditions, including witchcraft, viewed nature as a living tapestry woven with spirits and deities. Herbal lore, rituals tied to seasonal cycles, and a deep respect for the natural world were all hallmarks of these practices. However, the rise of Christianity in Europe often clashed with these Earth-based spiritualities. The Christian God, seen as separate from, and dominant over nature, conflicted with the pagan view of interconnectedness. Witch hunts, fueled by fear and a desire to control the unexplained, became a violent way to suppress these older beliefs and enforce Christian dominance. This persecution, however, ironically went against a core Christian principle: stewardship. The Bible itself instructs humanity to be caretakers of creation, a responsibility deeply at odds with the destructive tendencies that would later mark the Anthropocene.
Just as the all-encompassing brand of Christianity in Medieval Europe offered a warped sense of control over the unexplainable forces of nature, today, a multitude of brands exploit a similar human desire. They position themselves as antidotes to the environmental anxieties of the Anthropocene. Through greenwashing campaigns, they bombard us with images of idyllic landscapes supposedly saved by their products, or statistics highlighting the "sustainable" choices consumers can make. This constant barrage of eco-messaging creates a sense of individual responsibility for a problem with systemic roots.
Contemporary "greenwashing" mirrors the witch hunts in its performative nature. Back then, public accusations and rituals served as a show of power over unseen threats. Today, brands engage in eco-friendly marketing campaigns, touting recyclable packaging or carbon offsets, without necessarily addressing the core environmental impact of their production processes. These brands, like the witch hunters of old, offer consumers a sense of empowerment – the ability to "do their part" for the environment. However, this power is illusory. The responsibility is shifted from the corporations themselves, the true drivers of environmental damage, to individual consumers. Just as the persecution of women masked deeper societal anxieties in Medieval Europe, greenwashing deflects attention away from systemic issues like unsustainable production models and overconsumption.
In Medieval Europe, the accusers, often fueled by fear and superstition, were rarely the true culprits of diabolic workings. Similarly, in the Anthropocene, the finger of blame for environmental destruction rarely points directly at consumers. Brands, through their marketing and messaging, become both the accuser and the potential solution. In the fear of becoming the accused and perpetually judged for our consumption habits, we accept those solutions as ultimate tools created for the sake of mankind, while the true culprits, the corporations with unsustainable practices, position themselves as almighty caretakers.
We live in an era of accusatory consumerism. By packaging and selling these accusations, the brands are gaining a competitive edge while we are offered an illusion of a positive impact. This gives us communal praise, and lets us extend the accusatory practice through Cancel culture as a contemporary burning at the stake . Blurring of the lines between the accuser and the accused fosters a culture of guilt and individual inadequacy, ultimately leading to consumer paralysis - a state in which it is less likely to challenge these practices or advocate for stricter regulations.