The Vicious Cycle of Consumerism in Iran

Every time an economic crisis intensifies, calls for “reduced consumption” re-emerge in public discourse. Yet, why does a society that advocates simplicity in words end up being labeled as consumerist in practice? This contradiction not only affects household economies but also undermines the country’s overall economic resilience. Nasser Fakouhi, anthropologist and retired professor at the University of Tehran, offers a sharp critique of Iran’s cultural and economic policies. According to him, “The roots of consumerism in Iranian society do not lie in individual desires, but in the dissonance between the discourse and actions of official institutions.” In his conversation with Payam-e Ma, he delves into the historical and cultural underpinnings of this phenomenon and explains how ineffective policies and misguided governmental interventions have trapped the society in a dysfunctional cycle of consumption and dissatisfaction.

Why Do We Criticize Consumerism in Iran, Yet Live in One of the Most Consumer-Driven Societies in the Region?

The critiques we hear are often neither profound nor sincere. Typically, whenever the ruling establishment faces public dissatisfaction—either due to the inefficiency or incompetence of certain officials, or as a consequence of a decades-long shift toward a neoliberal, consumerist economy—it resorts to blaming the people for excessive consumption. This happens even more so today, when the country is caught between external sanctions stemming from years of aggressive foreign policy and internal profiteers who benefit from the sanctions, actively blocking any resolution or international regulatory compliance that might end money laundering practices. In such impasses, the authorities tend to advise the public to “consume less,” or they present questionable, partial, or context-less data—often to justify shortages or administrative failures. But these strategies usually backfire. It is true that consumption rates in Iran are high, and that this has deep historical roots. It is also true that people’s lifestyles have changed. However, a significant factor behind both phenomena—or at least their intensification—is the government’s misplaced intervention: it interferes excessively in areas where it should not, such as citizens’ private lives, while neglecting its core responsibilities in areas where state presence is essential.The imbalance lies in a system where governance is overly invasive where it ought to be restrained, and largely absent where it is needed most.
Unfortunately, one of the main challenges faced by analysts and environmental advocates when encouraging people to reduce consumption is the deep skepticism and reactive behavior that people show toward “government advice.” This means that even when we, as sociologists, advocate for simplicity or reduced consumption, we are immediately accused of defending the official state narrative.

This problem arises because, when authorities consistently fail to fulfill their responsibilities, people increasingly turn to populist discourses. They do whatever they want, individualism prevails, and society becomes more superficial—ultimately harming itself in the process.I myself have long been critical of excessive energy consumption and, more broadly, the flawed consumption patterns in Iran across all sectors. However, I constantly witness strong public backlash to such critiques. This backlash is, in large part, a reaction to corruption, wasteful practices among officials, and their lack of accountability. But it’s also due to a growing societal drift in Iran toward right-wing neoliberal and consumerist ideologies, which ironically harm the very middle and lower classes that adopt them. Unfortunately, both of these dynamics—governmental irresponsibility and neoliberal social trends—are global phenomena, varying in strength from one country to another

To what extent is consumerism in Iran an imported phenomenon, and to what extent is it rooted in our own cultural and historical structures? Has it always been this way?

While it is not entirely inaccurate to say that consumerism in Iran is imported, this view captures only part of the reality. First, we should recognize that the consumerist model took root in Iran in the late 1950s and early 1960s—a period often romanticized as a “golden era,” particularly by younger generations who have neither experienced those years nor have any comparative understanding of the world. However, the lifestyle patterns that emerged during this time, largely due to a sudden increase in oil revenues, fundamentally altered Iranian society. Prior to this period, frugality held far greater social value, but gradually, Iranians were transformed into a highly consumerist population, embracing consumption habits that are excessive even by Western standards. One clear example lies in the rapid, unplanned urbanization Iran experienced. This urban expansion did not produce the cultural shifts typically associated with modern urban life, such as respect for personal boundaries or independent social spaces. As a result, urban behaviors were never internalized, and many Iranians still interact as if in small rural communities, constantly intervening in one another’s private lives and closely monitoring each other’s behavior.
In other words, many people consume in order to be seen—a behavior deeply rooted in the rural tradition of observing and scrutinizing others, which has persisted into urban life and continues within families and social circles. This creates a situation where consumption is often driven by the degree of attention or appeal it can generate. This phenomenon is evident not only in purchasing clothing, but also in buying cultural products like books, where the act of consumption becomes a means of self-display rather than utility or interest.This extends to patterns of mobility—for instance, the excessive use of private cars, frequent recreational travel to the north of the country, and high rates of both intra- and inter-city transportation. The problem with such behaviors is that, much like unhealthy dietary habits such as overeating or obesity, they are easy to adopt and extremely difficult to abandon. While I do not downplay the role of external influences—media, advertising, and consumer capitalism—I firmly believe that the primary driver is internal, rooted in behavioral and consumption pattern shifts that began in the 1960s due to sudden oil wealth. The 1979 revolution failed to reverse these patterns, and by the 1990s, government policies began to actively promote consumerism, reinforcing the idea that greater consumption equates to greater well-being. This ideology persisted until recent years, when sanctions placed severe pressure on Iran’s economy—but I am convinced that as soon as these pressures ease, the consumerist discourse will reemerge strongly from all sides.

How can we break out of this cycle? Through education? Legislation? Lifestyle changes? Because institutions like schools, media, and even families often seem to promote increased consumption rather than responsible consumption. Are these institutions themselves part of the problem?

Undoubtedly, they are. If you look closely at each of these institutions, you will see that their recommendations are often artificial, performative, and imposed. On one hand, they advise people to consume less, but on the other, the public witnesses rampant irresponsibility and extravagance in administrative and managerial practices. Almost daily, some institution proposes baseless, ineffective projects that waste billions of tomans from national resources—none of which go unnoticed. Dozens, if not hundreds, of “cultural” and “educational” organizations receive enormous budgets, yet what we see across the board is irresponsible, ineffective, and even damaging expenditures by public, semi-public, and private entities. These actions have a profound psychological impact, reinforcing consumerist tendencies among ordinary people. Even today, where we observe a decline in consumption, it is not due to a conscious choice, but simply because people cannot afford to consume more. And such behavior is clearly unsustainable. The responsibility for this lies squarely with those officials who have allowed corruption and incompetence to spread so deeply throughout the system. While some individuals face the harshest punishments for minor ideological or even personal preference-related offenses—such as their appearance—such actions not only damage the country’s reputation abroad through the propaganda they generate, but also contribute to the intensification of negative portrayals of the nation. At the same time, some of the largest embezzlers in history, who have stolen billions of dollars from public funds, are suddenly released from prison and quickly regain the trust of officials with apparent ease. These contradictory and unjust behaviors have serious consequences: they erode public trust and fuel widespread skepticism toward official advice and warnings, including those related to responsible consumption or economic discipline.

Does our educational system effectively produce individuals who are consumerist and view consumption as a measure of success?

By “educational system,” I primarily refer to pre-university education, as it focuses on upbringing. However, I also include university education in this assessment. Both before and after the revolution, rather than aiming to culturally transmit knowledge about the rapidly changing external world—which people urgently need in order to adapt, resist challenges, and utilize opportunities to improve their lives—universities have often pursued idealistic goals. I summarize this mainly as the instrumental use of ideology to gain more wealth and power. Ideology, in this context, refers to a set of beliefs that do not subject themselves to empirical testing, hold absolute certainty beyond reality, and seek to forcibly reshape reality to fit themselves. Of course, such efforts inevitably fail, as has been the case everywhere—across different cultures, countries, and historical periods—and they often produce results contrary to their intended goals due to reactive opposition.
Unfortunately, social activists have not yet reached a level of maturity to understand that a lifestyle free from consumerism holds an intrinsic, inherent, and beneficial value for individuals themselves, regardless of the type of government, its policies, or how well or poorly officials perform. It is clear that most of the subjects taught in our schools and universities are not inherently susceptible to ideological manipulation. However, when the overarching principle becomes the instrumentalization of education for ideological and profit-driven purposes, the result is a widespread loss of public trust in the educational process, its usefulness, competence, and integrity—even in non-ideological fields. This leads to exactly what I mentioned before: the formation of inefficient individuals, which stands in direct opposition to the purported goals of the prevailing ideology.For this reason, more than forty years after a revolution primarily motivated by demands to eliminate inequality, class disparities, and the irresponsibility of rulers in fulfilling the government’s duties—especially toward the lower and middle classes—we still see that the standard of “success” in a country like ours remains advancing at the expense of others, wealth accumulation, fame, and power. In such a context, calls for “frugality” become a bitter joke for most people.

We have just emerged from the twelve-day war and are, in a way, living in a post-war condition. In your view, can consumerism act as either an obstacle or a catalyst for rebuilding social cohesion and cultural identity? From an anthropological perspective, how can consumer behaviors be guided to contribute to the long-term resilience of society?

In my opinion, the twelve-day war that Iran experienced will continue in various forms due to countless geopolitical, political, and economic reasons, and it has in fact persisted under the surface for years. However, I do not believe that the same level of conflict we witnessed during those twelve days will be as easily repeated. I won’t delve too deeply into this now but may address it more fully at another time.I mention this war briefly here in relation to our topic because, firstly, the issue at hand is not unrelated to this conflict, and secondly, it can offer insights for the future. We live in a highly volatile region where tensions either escalate to such conflicts or are on the brink of doing so. In both cases, consumption, the market dynamics tied to consumption, saving habits, and attitudes toward consumer relationships and daily life significantly influence—and will continue to influence—our fate.
From this perspective, I must first emphasize a fundamental point: war—any war, even a defensive one—is a catastrophe that undermines the foundations of a society and inflicts both short- and long-term damage. Therefore, any attempt to highlight a “positive” aspect of war reflects a flawed perspective, which may be expressed consciously (out of opportunism or ambition) or unconsciously (due to ignorance, lack of information, or misunderstanding of both distant and contemporary history). Regardless, the outcome is the same: providing incorrect answers to valid questions. One inevitable consequence of any war is economic pressure, which in our case has been exacerbated by the profiteering behaviors of war profiteers and, more specifically, sanction profiteers. This alters the supply and demand dynamics of goods. In such circumstances, the more balanced and moderate the consumption behaviors of a population—and the more frugal and prudent its people—the less damage they will endure, especially in a prolonged conflict. Additionally, the higher the cultural capital accumulated by the people, the less severe the harm inflicted. Fortunately, during this short war, we witnessed much more reasonable behavior compared to the past: mutual respect among people, avoidance of panic buying or looting, and other commendable conduct. These factors contributed to preventing our enemies from achieving their objectives.
However, just as I condemn extremist behaviors, meaningless slogans, and hostile exaggerations (rather than courageous defensive actions), I also believe that the high-consumption lifestyle and the “luxurious” and “ostentatiously wealthy” model that many Iranians—especially those who view Gulf countries as an ideal—aspire to, are equally dangerous. These lifestyles undermine our resilience against the pressures that may arise in this turbulent region. Many of our people approach politics with the assumption that they know everything and believe that merely changing the ruling individuals or system will safeguard them from the risks of war and conflict. However, this is not the case; if it were, the situations in countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon would not be as dire as they are today.
High levels of consumption are clearly achievable only by a specific group within a society. In other words, the hierarchization of consumption leads to the hierarchization of citizenship status within that country, which in turn undermines national cohesion and weakens the country against external or internal threats. This illustrates how patterns of excessive or luxury consumption can devastate a nation and essentially eliminate consumption except at the minimal level necessary for survival.
From this perspective, I believe that establishing balanced and sustainable consumption patterns—that is, proper consumption rather than necessarily “less” consumption—can significantly contribute to the stability of both internal and external peace in a country. Raising public cultural awareness plays a fundamental role in national cohesion and the sustainability of a civilization. This is why we consistently emphasize that the more rulers foster an open political environment, respect individual lifestyle freedoms, refrain from interfering in the private sphere, and most importantly, reduce corruption—at least to the extent that people’s daily needs and services are met and individuals can envision a future better than their present—the stronger the barriers they build against any weapon or enemy. Conversely, those who seek “enemy agents” and “infiltrators” should carefully consider who, through their words and actions, provide excuses for others to portray our country and people in a bleaker light than reality. Of course, do not misunderstand: the term “blackening” (i.e., negative propaganda), which many institutions use to suppress any criticism, is not what I mean here. If the people of a country enjoy a decent standard of living and relative welfare, combined with freedom and justice, conditions quickly arise in which the kind of negative portrayal (blackening) often claimed becomes essentially impossible. If our country attains all these conventional aspects of modern life, the effects would immediately manifest in greater hope for the future, increased marriage and birth rates, reduced emigration, attraction of tourists, and a transformed international image of Iran. Therefore, instead of confronting critics—a common approach over the years—the best strategy is to prioritize meeting the material needs of the people first, followed by those related to human dignity, such as freedom of expression and lifestyle.

In a post-war society facing economic crises and constraints, balancing the fulfillment of basic needs with preventing excessive consumerism is indeed challenging. Culturally, this balance plays a crucial role. However, given that we have long dealt with sanctions and shortages, the idea of widespread “overconsumption” loses much of its meaning in the short term.

As I mentioned earlier, consumption patterns should be understood in a long-term historical context—over 50 to 100 years—not just a few years. The greater danger of consumerism in our society lies among the very affluent groups, including many who vocally support conflict and war while enjoying the highest levels of comfort themselves.Until we address the deep-rooted political corruption and managerial incompetence that cause such inequalities, it is unrealistic to expect reforms similar to those possible in wealthy countries. When many people struggle just to feed themselves and their children, discussing “reduced consumption” for the general population—even in wartime—becomes meaningless. Therefore, if social justice exists—as we saw during the prolonged eight-year Iran-Iraq war—the country can be managed while ensuring that people have access to minimum basic resources. However, if injustice, inequality, free-market neoliberalism, political hegemony, closed political spaces, endless interference, and everyday violence persist, the foundations of popular resistance will weaken day by day. Military capabilities are indeed important, but the social collapse of a system rarely occurs solely due to external interference (such interventions seldom lead to immediate collapse). It is important to consider that while we are among the wealthiest countries, we are also one of the most disaster-prone nations, frequently facing earthquakes and other natural calamities that can create conditions worse than multiple wars. Therefore, maintaining strategic policies for food, water, and other essential daily supplies—not hoarding but prudent reserves—should always be a priority, even in the absence of external enemies. This is precisely the approach taken by countries like Japan.

Fortunately, the war was short-lived, and even if it continues, I believe its damage will not compare to the harm caused by improper resource consumption on our environment. For many years, we have been facing phenomena such as land subsidence, drying rivers and lakes, deforestation, expanding desertification, and pollution of water, air, and soil. These crises have persisted even without war, indicating a continual state of environmental emergency in the country.Moreover, political extremism and sanctions—which are closely intertwined with the very spies currently being pursued—have diverted financial and human resources that should have been dedicated to environmental protection and defense toward trivial issues like people’s appearance in cities, café opening and closing hours, or the programming of large state media and hundreds of so-called “cultural” institutions engaging in rent-seeking. This misplaced prioritization creates a fertile ground for environmental degradation, as these entities do not assign real value to ecological sustainability. To address this, the concept of “development” must be redefined to prioritize sustainability over consumption-driven growth. Development should emphasize preserving natural resources, enhancing environmental resilience, and ensuring equitable access to essentials, rather than merely expanding production and consumption. Only through this shift can we hope to mitigate environmental crises in the post-war context and build a sustainable future.

We see that when an environmental crisis begins, it affects everything indiscriminately—both the vulnerable and the resilient suffer. If the irresponsible approach toward environmental issues in Iran continues, within a few decades, half the country will become virtually uninhabitable due to extreme heat. For us, war should serve as a wake-up call—like an earthquake that briefly reveals both our vulnerabilities and our strengths. Our strength lies in social cohesion and national solidarity; however, our weakness remains that even after the war and despite the people’s commendable behavior, profiteers of sanctions and internal enemies continue to sow division among the people and provoke external adversaries. By exacerbating political pressure, tightening control over democratic spaces, and displaying violence against citizens, they undermine this cohesion, paving the way for future attacks and increasing the likelihood of enemy success. In such circumstances, balanced and sustainable consumption becomes a powerful tool that each one of our people holds in their hands.
I don’t think we are exactly in such a situation right now. However, it is important not to overlook that beyond the issue of war, practices like branding, celebrity culture, and similar commercial strategies aim to increase consumption and create hierarchies, which severely undermine any stable social fabric. This is why, systematically, neoliberal policies have been pursued in our country for several decades (roughly since the 1990s). I do not necessarily see this as a defense of capitalism because global experience shows that a socially responsible, human-centered capitalism based on sustainable consumption and the expansion of the middle class is far more stable than financial capitalism focused on luxury brands. The latter requires shrinking the upper class to a minimum so that it can monopolize the largest share of national wealth, nearly eliminating the middle class and expanding the lower class to its maximum, making even minimal consumption for survival difficult. This dynamic poses significant risks to long-term societal reconstruction.

What is often done in Iran by those whom I believe have a specific agenda is to dismiss any call for justice and the implementation of fair economic policies—such as social capitalism—as mere “imaginary leftism.” Ensuring that people have access to basic needs like food, housing, healthcare, education, public transportation, and a healthy environment is not a matter of left or right political ideology. The debates around these issues, especially those targeting intellectuals, are fallacies. Today, even in developed countries, populism scapegoats immigrants—who hold the socioeconomic status similar to our poorest groups—and anyone defending them is accused of leftism or radical leftism, labels that have long lost their real meaning except in academic or intellectual circles.Defending forms of racist nationalism, glorification of ancient history, hostility toward ethnic minorities and Iranian languages, and focusing solely on what exists in Tehran and other large cities as the only standard of “rightness” and “goodness” all stem from these dangerous perspectives.

How can collaboration between non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and brands in post-conflict contexts impact social and economic reconstruction? From an anthropological perspective, how can such collaborations avoid the pitfalls of commercialization and consumerism, and instead serve the interests of the community?

Exactly. In my view, regardless of a country’s situation, economic, social, and cultural progress depends heavily on strengthening and expanding the role of NGOs and civil society organizations. These institutions act as crucial bridges between the people and the government. Unfortunately, in Iran, this sector has been monopolized by certain individuals and groups who not only fail in their responsibilities but have also embezzled large sums of money. Worse, they have become some of the main sources of internal division and tension, giving external enemies excuses to tarnish our country’s image and justify military actions against it.

From an anthropological perspective, genuine collaboration between NGOs and brands can avoid the pitfalls of commodification and unchecked consumerism by focusing on community needs, fostering sustainable practices, and promoting cultural values rather than merely profit. This requires transparency, accountability, and a shared commitment to long-term social well-being rather than short-term commercial gains.

How can collaboration between non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and brands in post-conflict contexts impact social and economic reconstruction? From an anthropological perspective, how can such collaborations avoid the pitfalls of commercialization and consumerism, and instead serve the interests of the community?

Exactly. In my view, regardless of a country’s situation, economic, social, and cultural progress depends heavily on strengthening and expanding the role of NGOs and civil society organizations. These institutions act as crucial bridges between the people and the government. Unfortunately, in Iran, this sector has been monopolized by certain individuals and groups who not only fail in their responsibilities but have also embezzled large sums of money. Worse, they have become some of the main sources of internal division and tension, giving external enemies excuses to tarnish our country’s image and justify military actions against it. From an anthropological perspective, genuine collaboration between NGOs and brands can avoid the pitfalls of commodification and unchecked consumerism by focusing on community needs, fostering sustainable practices, and promoting cultural values rather than merely profit. This requires transparency, accountability, and a shared commitment to long-term social well-being rather than short-term commercial gains. Civil society organizations have proven worldwide to be among the most effective tools for promoting sustainable consumption and expanding the middle class, complementing government efforts and providing a genuine foundation for social and national cohesion in today’s world. Compared to other developing countries, we remain significantly weak in this regard. This vulnerability has led to issues such as a lack of social trust, a growing gap between governance and the people, and a dangerous hierarchy of consumption in our country—all of which contribute to heightened risks during any crisis, especially in major social tensions and wars.

Post-war economic policies often prioritize rapid recovery. How does this approach impact consumption culture? Are there more balanced alternatives?

These policies are familiar to us given the recent war experience; however, Iran’s economy currently faces a greater challenge—sanctions—that can only realistically be addressed through negotiation. While questions remain about who the negotiating parties are, how much trust can be placed in them, their past actions, and commitment to obligations, none of these factors guarantee certainty. Nonetheless, this should not prevent us from recognizing the fundamental reality: lifting sanctions is our greatest economic imperative, followed by earnest integration into the global market, leveraging our country’s abundant natural and human resources.The strategic policy pursued—or attempted—since the revolution, emphasizing independence from both Eastern blocs (China and Russia) and Western powers (Europe and the US) while acting autonomously within regional and Global South frameworks, remains the most viable strategic approach.

If you were to propose a roadmap for Iran to both strengthen economic resilience and move away from destructive consumerism, what should be the first step? Education, policymaking, or changing cultural narratives? How much should the people be blamed for consumerist lifestyles versus the economic and advertising structures?

The roadmap is as I mentioned: the real war for us was not just the twelve-day conflict. We need a comprehensive reassessment of our foreign and domestic policies, which is partly underway. What we see today—in terms of greater freedom in dress in our cities and the international negotiations we are conducting—though imperfect and fraught with challenges, are steps in the right direction and should continue. However, the starting point must be the removal of sanctions and adherence to international anti-corruption laws. Keeping people politically manipulated or funding those who, under the guise of cultural work, actually deepen enmity and cause more harm than good—giving enemies excuses for harsher sanctions and, now, bombing and destruction—only benefits those I call the “sanctions profiteers.” Ironically, these are often the same people who portray themselves as the most hardline in every sphere, only to reveal later how they have deceived many officials and citizens alike.

Source: Payam-e Ma Newspaper / September 6, 2025

This text is an interview with Nasser Fakouhi published in Payam-e Ma newspaper on September 6, 2025, translated by artificial intelligence. The original source is available at the following link:

چرخه معیوب مصرف گرایی در ایران