Charles Medawar Comment on the Paper by Shanks
There are three separate though related propositions in the conclusion to Michael Shanks' paper. The first is that consumers are not taken seriously enough; and the second is that they should be less passive. Then there is the central idea: Shanks argues that consumers would enjoy a greater net influence, by operating with and within the major centres of power.
On the face of it, it seems attractive. If one is involved in the consumer movement, one will tend to take the first two propositions for granted. And most people would probably be at least pragmatic about the main proposition: If you can't beat them, by all means join them -provided of course it works.
But why should this form of power-sharing work? The evidence in Shanks' paper, as in real life, is of a consumer movement that is puny in its influence, compared to the great powers of commerce, labour, and state. If it were to join forces with one of these powers, the consumer movement would surely be overwhelmed? It would make little headway with the host power -because it would not negotiate from a position of strength -and would certainly be alienated from the other powers that be.
If Shanks can credibly liken to-day's consumer movement to the trade union movement of 100 years ago, should the consumer movement really be flirting with the major powers of the 1980's?
The prospect of such a marriage reminds me somehow of a perfectly disgusting (though pleasantly surreal) schoolperson joke: Question: Why did the elephant marry the mouse? Answer: Because he had to. I doubt not only whether Shanks' proposals could work; but also doubt if they should. There would be two main arguments against.