Struggling to Downshift Consumption: The Ambivalence of Excess and Implications for Sustainable Consumption

Abstract

This paper examines the narratives of consumers who aspire to adopt a simpler, less excessive, and more sustainable lifestyle but struggle to achieve this goal. The analysis reveals that one of the key barriers to downshifting consumption lies in a deep-seated ambivalence: material excess is experienced as both burdensome and evocative, cyclical consumption practices as simultaneously meaningless and pleasurable, and the omnipresent marketplace as both frightening and captivating. This ambivalence is sustained through key mechanisms, including the rationalization of consumption choices using self-care and care for others and hope for a tipping point. The discussion suggests that efforts to promote sustainable consumption cannot rely solely on moral prescriptions and rational appeals. Instead, a more nuanced approach is needed, one that acknowledges the emotional complexities of consumption and the deeply ambivalent nature of consumer–market relationships in affluent societies.

1. Introduction

Scholars demonstrate that excessive consumption can be detrimental to personal well-being and environmental sustainability [1,2]. In search of a pathway toward reducing excessive consumption, the sustainability literature is often interested in better understanding not only why overconsumption occurs [3] but also “how can we stop accelerating our consumption?” [4].

In consumption studies, writers discuss consumers who voluntarily opt to downshift their consumption [2]. These studies discuss consumers trying to free themselves from constraining social structure and, through their low-consumption lifestyle, embracing an inwardly rich and outwardly simple life [5,6]. Cherrier and Murray [2] describe this transition as a shift from a having mode of existence to a being mode, one where individuals learn to prioritize people over products and creative production over frivolous consumption in a quest for pleasure, well-being, meaning, and environmental preservation.

Downshifting consumption can be traced back to spiritual teachers such as Buddha and Confucius, as well as philosophers like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, who advocated for material moderation and temperance [2,5,6]. For instance, Socrates and his pupil Plato professed that material excess is a burden on human lives and has destructive effects on human virtue. Similarly, Aristotle argued that excess destroys courage and temperance. Understanding excess as burden has also been considered by Yoga Sutras of Patanjali and Zen Buddhism, which instructs that excess holds us back from life’s ultimate goals. Today, it is gaining prominence in sustainability scholarship and is increasingly recognized as a strategy to reduce resource overuse and achieve sustainability goals [7,8,9,10].

Disenchantment with excessive consumption is commonly discussed as a catalyst for downshifting consumption [2,7]. Scholars identify a range of reasons for this disenchantment, including overwork, relentless advertising, the pressure of luxury culture, stress from the rat race, consumer fatigue, and a general sense of loss of control over one’s life [2,7]. Others highlight more existential motivations, such as the pursuit of spiritual purification or altruistic concerns for others [11,12]. Nixon and Gabriel [13] (p. 3) further describe a subconscious, visceral reaction, where consuming less stems from “a deep fear of physical and spiritual contamination by consumerism”.

Although scholars suggest that disenchantment with consumption is increasingly significant among affluent consumers [7,13], it remains uncertain whether individuals can successfully downshift when faced with the entrenched forces of the marketplace. Thompson [14] (pp. 173–174) notes that we exist within “an endless array of marketplace choices” where only a small minority can “vigilantly monitor the manifold of a corporation or industry”. Research on alternative and reduced consumption has demonstrated the sociocultural barriers to downshifting [15], while studies on hoarding reveal the challenges consumers face in relinquishing material possessions [16,17]. Drawing on Bourdieu’s concept of habitus and Baudrillard’s theory of sign systems, Arnould [18] also raises compelling doubts about whether consumers can truly transcend commercial influences and distance themselves from the dominant logic of material accumulation.

This study questions what can impede consumers to downshift consumption when it is experienced with disenchantment. Specifically, it examines narratives of individuals who openly aspire to live a simpler, less excessive life aligned with the ideology of simple living [2,6,7] yet struggle to achieve this goal.

In the following section, a theoretical perspective on the disenchantment of excessive consumption is presented. Following the description of the methodology, the manuscript provides details of the themes that have emerged from the hermeneutical analysis of seventeen narratives. The Section 5 and Section 6 summarize the findings and provide implications for sustainable consumption. The last section offers limitations and offers avenues for future research.

2. Disenchantment and Excessive Consumption

Scholars have long debated the consequences of living in a world characterized by overabundance and excess, arguing that it has disrupted the subject–consumption relationship [19,20]. Excess, by definition, entails surpassing what is considered customary or appropriate, while disenchantment refers to a detachment from previously held beliefs and ways of life [21]. Researchers suggest that a life centered around excessive consumption, shopping, and brand engagement is ultimately unfulfilling and transient [22], leading to saturation, overload, debt, stress, and anxiety [23]. Moreover, it diminishes the joy of simple yet meaningful activities such as walking and conversation [24].

Given the detrimental effects of excessive consumption on both individuals and society, why do consumers struggle to adopt a more minimalist lifestyle and embrace voluntary simplicity? The following theoretical perspectives offer valuable insights.

2.1. Excessive Consumption and Domination

Critiques of excess consumption are often associated with the Frankfurt School, which argues that consumption serves as a system of domination, reinforcing consumer dependence on rigid, all-encompassing consumption codes dictated by the culture industry. This perspective suggests that consumers operate under false consciousness, driven by artificially constructed needs, and that everyday life is colonized by commercial forces [25]. Frankfurt School theorists further assert that individuals are largely incapable of recognizing or resisting their own subjugation within these hegemonic structures. In this view, the marketplace is omnipresent, perpetually urging consumers to “shop till you drop” and “buy, buy, buy”. Critics such as Baudrillard and Debord argue that the culture industry creates an all-encompassing spectacle, where consumers lose their sense of identity and purpose within an endless cycle of mediated consumption [20,26,27]. Baudrillard [27] expands on this, asserting that passive, non-reflexive consumers are alienated as objects come to dominate subjects. This critical tradition has led consumer culture theorists to explore how mass-mediated marketplace ideologies sustain sign domination and reinforce consumer dependency [28].

2.2. Excessive Consumption and Pleonexia

Another conceptualization of excessive consumption can be traced to Kant and Hegel’s broader vision of human nature, which suggests that individuals are inherently insatiable, a condition that Plato and Aristotle termed pleonexia, or the unquenchable “desire to consume more than necessary or to possess something one has no right to” [29] (p. 223). Much like Don Giovanni, who relentlessly pursued and consumed love to satisfy his insatiable desires, consumers continuously seek fulfillment through material acquisitions. Plato saw pleonexia as an innate human flaw that must be restrained through justice and reason, while Aristotle viewed it as a moral vice that corrupts character and destabilizes society. Fundamentally, pleonexia encapsulates the unchecked pursuit of self-interest, manifesting as an insatiable appetite for wealth, power, or possessions, often at the expense of moral and societal decay [29]. Borgmann notes that consumer culture has created an “unnatural setting of overabundance” [30] (p. 421) that fuels and normalizes insatiable acquisition.

2.3. Excessive Consumption and Ongoing Cycle of Magic

Another perspective locates excess within a self-perpetuating cycle, often referred to as the “cycle of desire” [31] or the “cycle of consumption” [32]. This cycle is fueled by competitive consumption—the societal pressure to “keep up with the Joneses”—which leads to an endless loop of acquisition, dissatisfaction, and renewed consumption [32]. De Graaf et al. [33] characterize this phenomenon as a “painful, contagious, socially transmitted condition of overload, debt, anxiety, and waste resulting from the relentless pursuit of more” (p. 2). Within this framework, excessive consumption follows a repeating sequence of illusionary gratification, akin to an ongoing magic show that unfolds in four stages: (1) the media and popular culture calibrate consumer expectations, (2) promise of gratification, (3) ludic satiation, and (4) normalization and rising sense of loss [34]. This cycle, repeating ad infinitum, ensures that consumption remains an ever-present force in modern life, sustaining economic growth while simultaneously fostering dissatisfaction [34].

2.4. Excessive Consumption and Wasteful Expenditures

Bataille [35] compares the system of production and consumption to a living organism that absorbs energy for survival and uses any surplus for growth. However, when surplus energy (wealth) exceeds what is necessary, it becomes intoxicating and must be spent. In primitive economies, ruling classes dissipated surplus wealth through communal festivities, games, and ceremonies, strengthening social bonds. With the rise of the Bourgeoisie and capitalist accumulation, surplus wealth is no longer collectively spent and is intoxicating. In capitalist economies, this surplus wealth is often channeled into extravagant consumerism—luxury goods, entertainment, fashion, and technology—mirroring the wasteful expenditures he describes in historical contexts. Just as ancient civilizations engaged in ritual sacrifices or monumental extravagance to dispose of excess, modern societies engage in extravagant consumption as a form of structured waste. Advertising, planned obsolescence, and the relentless pursuit of novelty encourage individuals to continually purchase and discard, ensuring that surplus production is absorbed in ways that sustain economic expansion. Yet, as Bataille suggests, this excess cannot be purely productive; it must involve a level of wastefulness or loss, seen in the unsustainable depletion of resources and the environmental crises tied to overconsumption.

Building on these perspectives, we empirically investigate the barriers that prevent consumers from downshifting their consumption, even when they experience disenchantment. Are they trapped by their own insatiable desires? Are they disempowered by a system of domination, as the Frankfurt School suggests? Are they merely victims of capitalism’s ability to perpetually reignite the desire for more? Or do they, paradoxically, feel a sense of responsibility to absorb the surplus through excessive consumption, despite finding it deeply unfulfilling?

3. Methods

This study employed a qualitative, phenomenological approach to data generation through in-depth interviews with twelve participants (see

Table 1. Informants.

Pseudonym	Age	Gender	Occupation	Family/Children
Marc	37	Male	Green activist and sustainability development manager	Married 1 child
Eva	41	Female	Master’s student	Divorced/no children
Anita	26	Female	Environmental student	Single/no children
Raylene	29	Female	Sells environmentally friendly washing machines	Single/no children
Ariel	22	Female	Student	Single/no children
Helen	24	Female	Environmental activist	Boyfriend (does not live with him)
Frank	28	Male	Assistant to movie producer	Single/no children
Danny	61	Male	Handy man	Married 2 children
Pamela	57	Female	Retired	Married 1 child
Jane	29	Female	PhD Student	Lives with boyfriend/no children
Ronald	20	Male	Works in an electronic store Occasionally—writes journal articles	Lives with girlfriend/no children
Tania	25	Female	Writer—literature student	Single/no children

). Phenomenological interviews are typically unstructured and conversational, enabling dynamic interaction between researcher and participant and foregrounding the subjective meanings embedded within participants’ lived experiences [36]. Data collection was conducted within the context of an affluent consumer society.

Participants were recruited using a combination of classified advertisements (posted online and in newspapers), printed flyers, and snowball sampling techniques. Recruitment materials invited individuals who identified their consumption as excessive to engage in open-ended discussions concerning their experiences and attitudes toward consumption.

No financial incentives were provided, and participation was voluntary. As such, it is assumed that the respondents were intrinsically motivated and willing to reflect critically on their consumption behaviors. An initial screening process was conducted via brief email, telephone, or face-to-face interactions. Prospective participants were asked to describe their interest in the study, articulate their understanding of their consumption lifestyle, and reflect on their engagement with questions surrounding consumption patterns. Example screening questions included the following: “Can you explain your interest in this study?”, “How do you define your consumption lifestyle?”, and “Do you often question how much you consume, when, and why?”.

The selection criteria prioritized individuals who perceived excessive consumption as problematic in relation to their self-concept, aspirations, and personal values yet reported ongoing difficulty in reducing consumption. Individuals who had already made a successful transition to a simplified lifestyle were excluded to maintain the focus on those actively grappling with the challenge of downshifting. This approach ensured that all participants expressed both dissatisfaction with their current consumption levels and a desire for change while lacking the capacity to “deliberately, intentionally, and purposefully” disengage from excess [6] (p. 24). All participants consented to sharing their experiences in recorded, in-depth interviews.

Data collection commenced with broad, open-ended questions regarding participants’ consumption histories and everyday practices [36]. Interview questions evolved organically to elicit detailed accounts of participants’ experiences with excessive consumption and the psychological and practical barriers to downshifting. The concept of “excess” was intentionally left undefined by the researcher and used instead as a discursive probe to facilitate the articulation of individualized meanings. Interviews ranged from 90 to 260 min in duration and were transcribed verbatim for subsequent analysis.

Following Thompson’s [36] hermeneutic framework for analyzing consumer narratives, a three-stage analytical process was implemented. First, transcripts were reviewed to generate initial insights into participants’ consumption-related experiences. Second, recurring themes were identified and organized across cases. Finally, emergent themes were refined inductively and contextualized within the broader theoretical framework developed earlier in this study.

4. Results

The findings illustrate that the lived experience of excessive consumption is embedded in material objects, consumption practices, and the marketplace. In this following discussion, we show the informants’ mixed or conflicting feelings about excessive consumption, such as being torn between (1) encumbering and evocative material overload, (2) pointless and pleasurable cyclical consumption practices, and (3) frightening and fascinating marketplace omnipresence. Our second set of findings show that ambivalence is maintained through the rationalization of consumption choices using self-care and care for others and hope for a tipping point.

4.1. The Ambivalence of Excess

4.1.1. Ambivalence Toward Material Objects: Encumbering and Evocative Overload

Our analysis identifies acquired, accumulated, hoarded, gifted, found, inherited, and collected material objects variously as “clutter” (Pamela), “burden” (Raylene), or “weight” (Anita). Eva condemns her house as being “very full, too full of stuff”. At the time of our interview, Eva possessed a large collection of teddy bears.

Eva: I have a thing with teddy bears, I love beautiful bears and whether they’re dressed beautifully or some expensive thing. But there is a point you have to go that’s enough, you’ve bought enough. Also what will I gain from it? What am I trying to gain from buying it? What is the outcome of buying another bear when you have so many? It’s not like it’s say a one-off and it’s going to sit there and be an important possession because it’s just surrounded by so many.

Whilst Eva keeps her collection of bears in good condition in her house, she did not express the dedication of a collector. When prompted on this, Eva explained that her “thing with teddy bears” was gone: “I call this stuff now…because I have so many”. Central to Eva’s story is that the multiplication of the once-unique and sacred objects has led to crumbling devotion. Eva describes her loss of devotion toward her teddy bears, as well as toward her vase collection, the inherited possessions from her aunt and her multiple ornaments, with disenchanted feelings of “having so much stuff”. However, contrary to the notion that there is no sacred order unless there is devotion to distinctive properties [23], Eva explains that her stuff, although no longer unique, remains somewhat sacred in that she cannot dispose of the objects: “Why don’t I give them to a charity or why don’t I give them to a hospital where a little girl might enjoy it?”. During the interview, Eva discussed the amount of money and time she spent to obtain her possessions; she recalls the place of acquisition and details with sadness the relationship she once experienced with her objects.

In considering Eva’s oscillation between letting go of her once beloved objects and her feelings of responsibility toward these same objects, we certainly cannot conclude that her world of excess is dull and unplugged from meaningful subject–object relationships. Danny, who lives with his wife in a cluttered home, further describes ambivalent feelings toward material excess—“My mother has moved out of a house where 3 generations of my family have lived. My dad, my granddad and I grew up in this house. So, we have 3 generations worth of junk”. When describing the material clutter, Danny calls it “junk” and discusses with anxiety a disordered home: “I want this place cleaned up” and “it needs to be cleaned up”. Danny’s disenchantment with material clutter, however, is juxtaposed with a sense of wonder on the long-lasting physical presence of his grandfather’s tools, furniture, bicycles, or kayaks—“Why can’t we get rid of them? I don’t know why we can’t get rid of them”. It is as if the objects, because of their enduring physical presence across “3 generations”, have acquired the status of both marvels and horrors. On the one hand, the material excess is horrific junk that needs to be cleaned up. On the other hand, the material junk is a reminder of the past generations, a powerful miracle remaining ‘alive’ whilst humans die. The disenchantment in material excess is thus not complete or total. When Danny looks at the “stuff”, memories of the past surface and the dead resuscitate. From this perspective, the excess “junk” cannot simply be seen as a loss of meaning, connections, or magic. Rather, an excess of material possessions is experienced with ambivalence as both encumbering and evocative.

4.1.2. Ambivalence Toward Consumption Practices: Pointless and Pleasurable Repetitions

Our informants discuss consumption as an inescapable circle and yet remain active participants in the spiral. Ariel describes the never-ending search for matching pants, shoes, and purses, a pursuit that she reflects is ultimately in vain and yet continues to pursue.

Ariel: It’s like you’ve never enough. What you have isn’t good enough. You have to have this so you can be this. But once you get it you need something else. And I’d feel that myself, like when I would go—I’d get a pair of pants, but I’d need the shoes and then I’d need the purse. That you can never have everything that you need, and that’s how it works. That’s what they want you to think. “They” like the advertisements, they want you to—it’s meant to make you feel like you don’t have enough and that you need more and that you’re not pretty enough or tall enough or skinny enough or anything. Things that you can’t change, but if only you had those.

Ariel’s narrative aligns with the literature on overconsumption, which commonly discusses ‘why we want what we don’t need’ [32]. Ariel, like these studies, does not have the answer. She speaks of an eternal cycle of desire, whereby each time there is a desire, there is another ‘birth’ [31], a process similar to Schor’s [32] notion of a perpetuating cycle of consumption. However, whilst Schor [32] explains that criticizing “the more the better” and “the consumption machine” will lead to reflexive consumers opting out of the “rat race”, our work highlights that critical reflection on the cycle of acquisition and consumption does not necessarily lead to live a life that is “outwardly simple, inwardly rich” [5]. As Eva explains, “I find it really difficult not to consume but I find it difficult to accept consuming things”. Unmistakable in our informants’ narratives is that they are describing the excessive and repetitive consumption circle with ambivalent feelings. This is explicit in Tania’s narrative, a twenty-five-year-old woman who moved from the country to the city. She describes the city as excessive in that it offers consumption at any time of day and night. She explains such convenience with mixed feelings: “it’s kind of a love/hate thing. I love it when I indulge in it and also a lot of times, I feel bad about it when I indulge in it too much”. She also juxtaposes the “fun” and “totally pointless” aspects of getting a coffee in the middle of the night.

Tania: I enjoy the convenience but there’s a lot of times when I even catch myself thinking did I really need that? Did I really want that? If I had been living where I used to live and had to wait ‘til tomorrow, would I have still wanted it? Or would it have just been a momentary wish that passed? And I see a lot of people, like I have a friend who I won’t name and she grew up in the city and always has and I was sitting talking to her at almost midnight the other night and she suddenly said, “Let’s go out and get coffee for a while and then I want to go get cigarettes”. And I’m like, “Well you have a coffee maker right there”. “Well yeah, but I want to go sit out and drink coffee”. And so, something very surreal about at almost 1 in the morning then being out drinking coffee for no other reason except that she just didn’t want to drink coffee in her house. And it was fun but it was also completely pointless.

Like Tania who feels “bad” and yet “loves it” when indulging in convenient consumption, Jane explains “overconsumption is a bad thing. But, I also enjoy it”. Jane discusses “bonding” with her mother during shopping trips and admits “I enjoy that and I like shiny new things. I could get excited by material items and things like that; but I don’t like that necessarily about myself. So I can see that I’m hypocritical in some ways”. The pleasures of consumption are experienced with ambivalent feelings for they are mingled with mixed and contradictory feelings of guilt and pleasure, fun and pointlessness, excitement and wastefulness.

4.1.3. Ambivalence Toward the Marketplace: Frightening and Fascinating Omnipresence

Our analysis discerns our informants’ critical awareness of the omnipresence of a “surreal” and “frenetic” marketplace. Within the lines of the Frankfurt scholars, our informants construct the marketplace as an omnipresent “massive production and consumption machine” (Anita). For Ariel, “It’s just scary how many commercials and advertisements and everything is sponsored—and just everything you watch is sponsored”. Critical of the dominance of advertising, Ariel “wonder[s] how people deal with that? Do they ignore it?”. Interestingly, for Ariel, advertising is not completely evil. In fact, Ariel discussed owning a television to better understand the forces of the marketplace and purposely watching marketing communications, such as the Home Shopping Network, for her personal interest “because it’s so interesting—I guess because I want to know how they’re doing it and what, what ideas they’re trying to sell people and what methods they use to try to make these people buy”. When probed on her views on commercials, Ariel was highly reflexive of dominant commercial codes. However, contrary to liberated consumers who distance themselves from excess via alternative modes of consumption, Ariel kept her television and continued watching commercials with great interest. The omnipresence of advertising fosters in Ariel ambivalent feelings; commercials are frightening and yet fascinating. Ambivalence toward the omnipresence of the marketplace is also clear in Anita’s experiences of shopping malls:

Anita: I think the funny part about it is that people want to be different, that they want to buy the book that makes them different, they want to buy the top that makes them different and that will make them stand out or, you know, make them a bit sexy and, you know, a bit bright or unique, that’s individual, that stands out, that expresses the individual. And yet, so much of what you have in consumer culture is fashion and trends and everyone trying to find this unique thing, and participating in the latest trend or the latest fashion, and ending up wearing a different color of the same thing that, you know, hundreds or thousands of others are wearing, a mix of trying to create an individual image for the self and being part of a massive production and consumption machine.

Anita, like all of our informants, is highly reflexive of consumption codes. In describing her understanding of the dominating aspects of consumer culture, Anita articulates the ambiguous message of the market in that it promises uniqueness and yet provides sameness. Such understanding, however, does not stop her visits to the “very artificial” shopping centers because “shopping malls are part of everyone’s life, including my family”. With friends and family members, Anita visits malls, consumes as a part of the consumption machine, and explains feeling amazed and fascinated by the extraordinary power of the marketplace in that it continues promising something that appears to be an impossibility.

Frank, a 28-year-old man, illustrates the ambivalent nature of marketplace omnipresence as both frightening and fascinating in terms of a battlefield in which consumers survive.

Frank: It is like a warzone… There’s all these sirens and crazy people screaming and yelling and other people just walking down the street talking on their phones 24 h a day… Everywhere you look, it’s “Buy This” or it’ll be some kind of music artist, a thousand times on a covered walkway where they’re doing construction. A thousand times I see this person’s face. You might see the same person’s face five thousand times in a single day.

Whilst Frank’s description of the city as “crazy” unconsciously echoes Gergen’s [23] notion of the saturated self, whereby the intensifying saturation of consumer culture has the power to dislocate and disable the self, he nevertheless persists in scrutinizing the city, frightened yet fascinated by the city’s “frenetic energy”. Central to Frank’s ambivalence toward a frightening and fascinating marketplace is his use of the metaphor “warzone” in that he is a warrior in the frenzy of marketplace omnipresence. Another informant, Ronald, describes the frightening and fascinating omnipresent marketplace using the analogy of another planet, such as “with the bright lights, all is so big, artificial, and it’s like being on another planet”.

These three themes highlight the need to consider excessive consumption beyond the fixed category of absolute evil, as discussed by the Frankfurt scholars. Experiences of excess are ambivalent in that they oscillate between material clutter and meaning, pointless and pleasurable consumption, and frightening and fascinating marketplace presence. In the next section, we show that ambivalence provides the space in which excess is maintained through hope for a tipping point, rationalization, and self-care, which hinders the possibility to adopt alternative modes of consumption embedded in the ideology of simple living [5].

4.2. Coping with Ambivalence

While ambivalence is often a source of stress that consumers seek to avoid or resolve, the consumers in this study navigate their ambivalence toward excess through self-care, care for others, and hope for a tipping point. Rather than prompting immediate change, these coping strategies serve to postpone the possibility of downshifting consumption, allowing excessive consumption to persist despite their dissatisfaction.

4.2.1. Self-Care

Our informants experience excess in consumption practices as both pointless and pleasurable. The ambivalent nature of consumption caused informants to develop rationales around their practices. Below, Jane explains her mixed feelings toward taking a bath:

Jane: I love to take a bath but that’s so unsustainable. Like that’s such a waste of water for one person, right? Maybe I stay in it for an hour and then, you know, it just drains out. There’s nothing wrong with that water and, you know, it’s hot. So there’s been energy that’s been used and things and—but I will still, when I’m really, really cold again, I will still take a bath. I find great comfort in that. It’s a nice ritual. I really like it. And sometimes, I will tell myself “No, you’re not allowed to. Like, that’s not okay da-da-da-da, but the stress and anxiety, I feel of like denying myself. That is really intense. So I have a lot of internal conflict about my message and then the way I act. I mean, I fly all over the place. And that’s not sustainable. And I’m worried that other people look at me and think “Well, is that sustainable? Like, why is she wearing that? Where did that come from?” And I know they don’t, but I do that to myself when I look at the mirror.

The narrative of Jane, a 29-year-old PhD student, is highly critical of our overconsumption society and its impact on our natural environment. In her description of the ambivalent act of taking a bath, which she describes with a mixture of positive and negative feelings, Jane points to specific situations when cold and in need of warming up. The situation of physiological needs provides a form of legitimation for an experience she acknowledges as wasteful. Similarly to Jane, Helen explains “having a very busy life” and rationalizing her “large book collection” as ways to escape her frenetic lifestyle:

Helen: My books, I can’t let go and I keep buying. I have quite a collection. They help me escape, like I get so tired from my work, but still it’s not easy, I’m very torn with that because of course at the used book store the author doesn’t get any more proceeds from that and I feel like it’s almost disloyal as someone who wants to be an author, not to at least make sure the author gets some of the royalties. On the other hand, I see it in hardback for $14 and I know—or 30 sometimes—and I know that in 3 months I can wait to read it or it’ll be at the library and I can borrow it. I spend a lot of time at the library too. I know in 3 months I’ll be able to buy it for 5 or $6 in paperback. Well, paperback recycles more easily should it ever be recycled than hardback. OK, fine. Then there’s all these choices to balance because then again it’s like, then again a hardback may never fall apart. You might buy a paperback book 3 times in your life if you’re going to read it a lot, but you might buy it in hardback once. So is it worth it, all these kind of issues to weigh in just buying a book. Sometimes I think I think way too much. And then other times I think somebody has to. So should you get it new and support the industry and be the author gets proceeds, or should you get it used and try to keep more trash out of the environment. It’s kind of the choices there, and you do the best you can. So a lot of time I wind up seeing if I can find a copy of whatever at the second hand store. And then if I can’t, then maybe I’ll see about getting it new. I do try to pare it down regularly by giving them away to just the classics that are my very favorite ones, that I know I’ll read again and again and actually get some use out of rather than just taking up space.

Helen is a 24-year-old female activist who, by being “pretty aware of environmental issues, social issues”, feels “burdened philosophically”. For Helen, shopping, eating, traveling, and consuming “really is a burden”—“I feel bad every time. I feel like maybe I bought a piece of clothing that was made in a sweatshop. I feel psychosocially quite burdened.”. Because Helen knows “where things come from and how our use of resources can lead to environmental degradation”, Helen navigates excess as both intoxicating and a source of enjoyment, which she rationalizes through self-care.

4.2.2. Care for Others

Unlike mechanistic puppets passively controlled by structural forces and incapable of recognizing the all-encompassing spectacle of market domination [26,27], our analysis reveals that reflexive individuals are unwittingly complicit in justifying their consumption, often framing it through the lens of caring for others. For example, Marc expresses ambivalence about his meat consumption but rationalizes it by considering his wife’s need for energy and his own financial constraints.

Marc: When I was a kid, I enjoyed the taste of meat and I still enjoy the taste of it. I don’t deny that but intellectually, I feel repulsed.

Interviewer: Really?

Marc: Yeah. This is sort of contradiction but you know, I would rather I didn’t eat meat. I feel there’s an unsustainable part there but also, you know, like I see that my wife is not gonna get the nutrients she needs without meat. I try to get her to take supplements but she won’t, she isn’t likely to do that. I kind of think the best way for her is to eat meat and me to eat meat. So, I know intellectually that eating meat is a high energy consumption behaviour and I think about all the forest that have been cleared for the sake of grazing animals and I think of the damage like, some animals cause the ecosystem, you know, when they’re farmed domestically for human consumption after being wild. I appreciate that some people, you know, if they can afford to, like the founder of Facebook, I’ll only eat meat if I kill it myself, you know. If I kill it and skin it myself, well fair enough, you know, he can afford that because he, being there. That’s easy for him. And other people, you know, will only eat chicken that they, you know, prepared themselves and look after themselves and stuff like that and I appreciate that too.

Marc describes a particular type of consumption practice—eating meat—that he believes is unnecessary and excessive in terms of its environmental impact. He is aware that he does not need to consume meat in order to be healthy and recognizes that meat production is unsustainable. Yet, he admits liking the taste of meat and consuming it. In the excerpt, Marc reconciles the different dimensions of meat consumption by rationalizing his ambivalence in acceptable ways. First, he refers to his wife’s needs, and second, he mentions his personal financial circumstances that are unlike those of Mark Zuckerberg. Accentuating personal circumstances thus reconciles different dimensions of excess, legitimizes the ambivalence of excessive consumption practices, and delays changes in their consumption practices. Rationalization through care makes excessive consumption acceptable and thus creates setbacks to changes in consumption practices.

4.2.3. Hope for a Tipping Point

Our findings show consumers coping with the ambivalent nature of excessive consumption through hope, as exemplified in Eva’s description of a “tipping point”.

Eva: I could give it all away soon maybe to a point but also knowing that if it’s going to go to somewhere where it’s going to benefit somebody makes me happy… I think there’s a tipping point. I think you get to a point and you will go across to that point and it’s okay to start boxing things up. I think I’m hovering prior to that tipping point. I know it’s there but I haven’t reached that.

Prior studies on disposal show consumers placing objects in transitional places until the objects are ready to be moved along [37]. Eva reflects on a “tipping point” that will mark the start of letting go of the numerous objects cluttering her personal space. Reflecting on the possible destination of her once loved objects, Eva is actively searching for processes and meanings of dispossession and hopes for a “tipping point” when she can let go of the objects. Elaborating on this tipping point and trusting that this “Eureka” moment will come contributes to sustaining delays and setbacks to letting go and de-cluttering. This hope feeds off the ambiguity in the accumulation of objects being both encumbering and evocative.

Eva: I always wonder, what are other girls doing with their clothes? Do they throw them out, do they keep them, do they have wardrobes full of clothes, what do other people do? How do they combat this problem? […] You just think so many people must be confronted with houses full of stuff that they don’t want to let go of but they continue to buy more things. I’d like to know what other people do when confronted with that.

In the excerpt above, Eva does not find satisfactory explanations for others’ dispossession practices and yet she hopes to reach understanding. Rather than being banal and meaningless, the world of the material is ambiguous and offers opportunities for hope in the future trajectory of its numerous objects.

These three themes demonstrate self-care, caring for others, and hope for a tipping point through which informants cope with the ambivalent nature of excess in terms of the material, consumption practices, and the marketplace, which ultimately creates setbacks to adopting alternative modes of consumption, such as simple living.

5. Discussion

The findings reveal that the lived experience of excessive consumption is deeply intertwined with material objects, consumption practices, and the pervasive influence of the marketplace. In the following discussion, we highlight informants’ ambivalence toward excess as they grapple with (1) the tension between material overload as both burdensome and emotionally evocative, (2) the paradox of cyclical consumption as simultaneously meaningless and pleasurable, and (3) the marketplace’s omnipresence as both frightening and fascinating. Our second set of findings illustrates how ambivalence creates a space in which excessive consumption persists. This ambivalence is sustained through key mechanisms, including the rationalization of consumption choices using self-care and care for others and hope for a tipping point.

Prior research suggests that when excess leads to disenchantment, consumers often seek to free themselves from material clutter and excessive consumption in pursuit of meaning and personal fulfillment [2,37]. Through critical reflection on the intoxicating nature of excess, some attempt to distance themselves from dominant market logics and engage in more sustainable consumption practices [2,6,7,37].

Our study, however, highlights how ambivalence in excess impedes the adoption of more sustainable consumption lifestyles, such as simple living [6]. Informants describe excess as burdensome, surrounded by overwhelming material clutter, caught in a cycle of consumption they perceive as meaningless, and immersed in a world dominated by marketing and advertising. Yet, excess is not solely disenchanting. Material abundance retains emotional significance, cyclical consumption remains a source of pleasure, and the omnipresence of the marketplace continues to fascinate. This ambivalence evokes conflicting emotions—both love and hate—driving simultaneous attraction to and resistance against material overload, repetitive consumption, and the market’s dominance. Thus, rather than being a straightforward rejection of doing the “right thing” for the planet, future generations, or other beings, consumers might fail to adopt more sustainable consumption lifestyles due to the deeply ambivalent nature of their relationship with the marketplace.

6. Conclusions

The concept of sustainable consumption was officially introduced at the 1994 Oslo Symposium and has since gained global attention among researchers, practitioners, and policymakers [38,39,40]. Today, sustainable consumption is frequently presented as a rational solution to the problem of unsustainable consumption [39]. For instance, Bogusz and colleagues [41] (p. 6516) define sustainable consumption as “the optimal, conscious and responsible use of available natural resources as well as goods and services at the level of individuals, households, communities (local, business), local governments, national governments and international structures, in accordance with the principles of sustainable development”. This definition emphasizes rational environmental use, resource recovery, and the provision of a safe environment that is not degraded beyond its resilience limits.

This perspective positions consumers as responsible and rational actors who are expected to make moral choices through their consumption habits. Policymakers, corporations, media, and retailers all play key roles in shaping and mobilizing these consumer-citizens, encouraging them to adopt sustainable practices as part of a broader moral and civic responsibility [38,40]. This focus on individual consumers as a central agent of change seeks to cultivate positive attitudes toward sustainability, reinforce pro-environmental identities, and shape social norms that guide consumers toward adopting sustainable practices as part of acting as a good “consumer-citizen” [40] (p. 6683). Fundamental to this process are awareness campaigns designed to educate consumers on what constitutes sustainable consumption and to tailor messaging to distinct consumer segments [41]. As such, narratives of sustainable consumption tend to emphasize the power of the consumer to effect environmental and social change through market choices, by buying organic food, reducing plastic use, or supporting fair trade products. The underlying assumption is that knowledge leads to action, that consumers who understand the environmental and health implications of their choices will adjust their behavior accordingly. In this framing, the ideal consumer is positioned as rational, informed, and morally responsible [40,42]. As Lim and colleagues [40] (p. 6683) explain: “the consumer-citizen is known to be a core element in efforts to bridge the gap between sustainable attitudes and unsustainable behavior”.

However, as this study demonstrates, even consumers who are aware, pro-environmental, and responsibilized often struggle to translate their values into sustained actions.

Our findings highlight how consumers experience a profound ambivalence toward consumption, torn between awareness of excess and its irresistible allure. On the one hand, they recognize the wastefulness, environmental harm, and fleeting satisfaction associated with overconsumption, which evokes feelings of guilt, anxiety, and even boredom. Yet, on the other hand, they remain captivated by consumption’s esthetic, symbolic, and emotional appeal, continually drawn in by marketing, social pressures, and the pleasures of novelty. This tension entices responsibilized consumers to critique their own consumption habits while continuing to participate in them, often justifying their actions as necessary, deserved, or as part of caring for others. This suggests that sustainable consumption cannot rely solely on moral prescriptions or rational appeals. Instead, a more nuanced approach is needed, one that acknowledges the deeply ambivalent nature of consumer–market relationships in affluent societies.

Thus, this study challenges conventional portrayals of sustainable consumption as a moral counterpoint to unsustainable consumption [39,43,44,45]. Drawing from Daston and Park’s [46] exploration of monsters as both horrifying and marvelous, we argue that consumption, too, both entices and repels.

Because excessive consumption can evoke both horror and desire, this study suggests that efforts to promote sustainable consumption must move beyond education and policies and public awareness campaigns that assume that knowledge leads to action. Instead, they must engage with the emotional complexities of consumption, recognizing consumers as deeply ambivalent participants in an ever-seductive yet exploitative marketplace.

7. Limitations and Directions for Future Research

While this study provides in-depth insights into the lived experiences of individuals struggling with excessive consumption, several limitations should be acknowledged, each of which also offers potential avenues for future research.

First, the context-specific and interpretive nature of phenomenological inquiry limits the generalizability of the findings to broader populations. Future studies could complement this approach with quantitative or mixed-methods designs to examine how the disenchantment of excess in consumption is experienced across diverse demographic groups and how this might impact (or not) the enactment of sustainable consumption.

Second, the context of this study does not capture the reality of an unequal world in which many struggle to survive. Future research might explore the barriers to sustainable consumption amongst underprivileged populations. Additional work might also consider the risks of depoliticizing sustainability by shifting responsibility away from systemic actors and toward the consumer [47].

Lastly, the deliberate exclusion of individuals who had successfully downshifted narrowed the focus to those still struggling with excess. While this allowed for an exploration of unresolved tensions, future research could investigate the transition process itself, comparing those who remain stuck with those who have managed to shift toward more sustainable lifestyles. Such comparative work could illuminate the psychological, structural, or cultural conditions that enable or inhibit downshifting.

Taken together, these limitations highlight not only the boundaries of the present study but also the need for a more comprehensive and multi-perspective exploration of sustainable consumption and the complexities of behavioral change.