"Consumers are poor substitutes for citizens." Benjamin Barber
"In a nutshell, the governing impulse of the consumer is "I want". The governing impulse of the citizen is "we need".
Mutual respect does not imply uncertainty or skepticism about the good; it implies, instead, a certain higher-order good, a vision of the citizen as an active searcher for what has worth, whose sincere engagement in that search should be allowed to unfold in freedom, even if it should lead to what seems to be error -- unless it inflicts manifest harm on others." (Martha Nussbaum, in Ethics of Consumption)
In the weeks after the 9-11 attacks, Sheldon Wolin asked, “what is the nature of citizenship in superpower democracy in the era of a globalized economy?”
In Republic.com and Republic.com 2.0, Cass Sunstein distinguishes between "consumer sovereignty" and "political sovereignty". For Sunstein, consumer sovereignty takes preferences and priorities as given, as matters of personal taste that are neither amenable to, nor in need of, public justification. The main question for consumer sovereignty is whether consumers are getting what they want, and it often draws on market research to manipulate them into thinking so. If we believe in consumer sovereignty, we are likely to think that freedom consists in the satisfaction of private preferences -- in the absence of restrictions on individual choices. (p.45) (see consumerism)
Political sovereignty, by contrast, "does not take individual tastes as fixed or given. It prizes democratic self-government, understood as a requirement of 'government by discussion,' accompanied by reason-giving in the public domain." (p.40) Within the political sphere, decisions have impact beyond the purely individual, and decisions need to take into account the potential impact on others.
The Athenian citizen claimed to be masterless, a servant to no mortal man. He owed no service or deference to any lord, nor did he waste his labour to enrich a tyrant by his toil. The citizen could perfectly well be a craftsman, a farmer, or a shoemaker…as long as he was free. Of course Athenian democracy was exclusive. The majority of the population — women, slaves, and metics — did not enjoy the privileges of citizenship. But the necessity of working for a living and even the lack of property were not grounds for exclusion from full political rights. The freedom, eleutheria, entailed by citizenship was the freedom of the demos from lordship, This concept also gave all citizens equal right of speech in the assembly. In the free Polis, anyone who had something useful to say had equal right to speak before the public (isegoria)
For Sunstein, democratic discussion thrives through a well-functioning system of free expression. In such a system, many or most citizens should have a range of common experiences, and they should be exposed to materials they would not have chosen in advance (rather than filtering them out and limiting their exposure to points of view they already agree with). For this reason, Sunstein is concerned about "filtering" of information on the internet, of customizing information to fit and thus reinforce existing preferences. Furthermore, the deliberation over policy preferences requires a process of political accountability on the part of elected representatives. The same does not hold true in the realm of consumer sovereignty. There is no requirement for reciprocal transparency.
"Unplanned, unanticipated encounters are central to democracy itself" -- (cf Jane Jacobs' descriptions of city streets).
What if, given the choice between becoming citizens and becoming consumers, we choose to be consumers? What if we find the ideals of the marketplace to be a more congenial model for how our politics ought to function? When you go to the mall, obsequious salespeople will trip over themselves to find a product that is perfectly suited to your own particular needs and desires. We have become so accustomed to this sort of highly individualized service that some people, particularly the young, are tempted to wonder why their politicians can't be more like their favorite brands. (see Andrew Potter, "My Logo")
The problem is that in a democratic society, we seek to govern ourselves by consensus and agreement. And that necessarily forces everyone to make compromises — something the logic of the new consumerism tells us we never have to do. The market is not a substitute for democratic participation.
In iSpy Mark Andrejevic describes "the invitation to participate in one's own manipulation by providing increasingly detailed information about personal preferences, activities, and background to those who would use the knowledge to manage consumption." Andrejevic provides a critique of the false claims to democratic participation of "interactivity", in which "people will not only pay to participate in the spectacle of their own manipulation, but ... will ratify policies that benefit powerful elites and vested interests at their own expense, as if their (inter)active support might somehow make these vested interests their own." (p.243)