Critical theory in marketing began in the 1970s, and in the 1980s and 1990s critical theory developed further as a response to social scientists outside the discipline being interested in consumption, markets and consumer issues (Tadajewski, 2010a; Tadajewski, 2010b; Shankar, 2009; Burton, 2001). Critical marketing theory emerged during the third era of the history of marketing theory discussed earlier, and gained greater prominence in the fourth era. Critical marketing literature is axiologically predicated on the issue of power relations that deviate from the idea of consumer sovereignty upon which the marketing concept is based (Tadajewski &
Brownlie, 2008; Brownlie, 2006).
Consequently, critical marketing theory deviated from the ‘normative’ view of marketing theory and proffered a deeper questioning of the philosophical foundations of the marketing discipline49. This deviation from the norm has not been embraced by the marketing discipline.
The evidence of this can be seen in the US domination of existing theoretical marketing discourse not conducive to critical perspectives, but there are some scholars successfully putting the discourse on the agenda (Shankar et al., 2006; Burton, 2001). This is supported by Fournier and Grey (2000) and Grey (1996) who have suggested that critical studies are growing in the area of ‘Critical Management Studies’.
These efforts can be seen in consumer culture theory (CCT) introduced by Arnould &
Thompson (2005) as a form of consumer research that highlighted the cultural elements of consumption50. Macro-marketing perspectives criticised the DSP as seen in previous discussion addressing broader societal marketing issues (Kilbourne, et al., 1997).
49Whilst this study is not considered a purely sociological one, the work of Jürgen Habermas has made significant contributions toward critical theory and the scholarship of teaching. Habermas's calls for particular
“reconstructive sciences,” whose aim it is to render theoretically explicit the intuitive, pre-theoretical know-how underlying such basic human competences as speaking and understanding, judging, and acting (Bohman, 2005).
This would be relevant in the context of critical marketing theory where the questioning of marketing theory is subject to reconstruction and questioning in the context of what constitutes powerful marketing knowledge.
Habermas also proffered that knowledge is rooted in historical and social structures and that there are three basic human interests we hold, our interest in controlling nature (technical interest), social harmony (practical interest) and individual growth (emancipatory interest) related to human survival (Kreber & Cranton, 2000, p.482). It can be suggested that the nature of the existing marketing curriculum highlights a strong focus on technical interest with advocating for ‘instrumental rationality). The focus of marketing knowledge in curriculum is distorted toward the economic contexts of the DSP. The emancipatory interests offered by Habermas’s scholarly work would advocate a questioning of the ideological contexts of marketing to consider critique to be free from coercion, self-imposed constraints as well as reified social forces and institutions.
50 Consumer culture theory emphasised the importance of locating phenomena in their wider social, political and historical contexts to expose the embedded power relationships and ideologies (Cova et al., 2013; Belk, 1995).
Additionally some propose other ways of looking at consumers, such as, non-consumption (Cherrier et al., 2011).
33
Stakeholder theory placed value on relationships that a firm has with its external stakeholders in pursuing Corporate Social Responsibility goals (Brower & Mahajan, 2012).
The Anti-globalisation movement was drawn from Marxist ideas, and it critiqued marketing as not serving the needs of poor people, poor countries and indigenous cultures (Witowski, 2005).
Consumer behaviour perspectives by Firat and Dholakia (2006, p. 140); Dholakia and Dholakia (1985) suggested that it is logical that the nature of the consumer is problematized as they are no longer simply devourers of value, but members of the consumption community - a producer of meanings, life experiences, identities and value, therefore, marketing theory needs to rethink the orientation and purpose of the consumer.
Further research was seen in transformative green marketing (Polonsky, 2011) which referred to the integration of transformative change that creates value for individuals and society and serves the natural environments (i.e. environmental restoration and improvement). Business also saw the link between business education and business practice through corporate environmentalism and corporate sustainability in order to build critically reflective organisations (Mac Vaughn & Norton, 2012; Arevalo, 2010, Lowrie & Hemsley-Brown, 2010).
Welfare marketing as opposed to sustainability marketing was a direct challenge to the existing DSP. Other research inroads were in psychological research and its influence on behaviour change through the promotion of attitude changes that are valued (Arbuthnott, 2009). There were other perspectives from macro-marketing, to consider how managers should use ethics in their decision-making (Laczniak & Murphy, 2006). Benton (1985), stressed the importance of including critical marketing studies scholarship in a ‘balanced’ marketing curriculum and critical marketing, to encourage a more reflexive approach to the making of truth claims within the discipline (Brownlie, 2006). However, despite references to these various aspects of critical studies in marketing, it remains highly unrepresented, hence this study seeks to make a contribution to critical marketing scholarship.
Critical theory attempts to demystify the ideological basis of social relations; a questioning of positivist methodology in relation to the nature of reality, knowledge and explanation and the importance of self-reflexivity of the investigator and the linguistic basis of representation (Burton, 2001, p.726).
34
Critical marketing theory would therefore question the social relations in which marketing occurred particularly in the context of markets, the marketing system and the interplay between business and the consumer. In particular, critical marketing theory provided a theoretical questioning of the ontological and epistemological basis of marketing knowledge51. Hence, the academic development of the discipline would be influenced by its social context, the manner in which marketing knowledge is constructed as well as the methodological approaches used in the development of marketing theory. Burton (2001) verified this and suggested that disciplinary boundaries are socially constructed and maintained and introduced the issue of power and politics into the process by which marketing as a discipline is constructed, maintained and undergoes rounds of restructuring.
This is pertinent in the context of the marketing curriculum where the higher education institution or academic, has power over the epistemological and ontological basis of marketing knowledge. The marketing curriculum is constructed for students hence, it adopts a particular theoretical stance that is usually in line with the DSP. Whilst critical theorists critique dominant ideologies, their intention is to transform them through the attempt to create a more equitable society, giving voice to those who are marginalised by mainstream discourse (Catterall et al., 2002).
The dominant discourse of the marketing curriculum is therefore subject to transformation by allowing the discipline to consider issues (such as sustainability) outside of its existing domain.
In so doing, the academic and the student are given the opportunity to consider their alternative roles in the development of marketing theory beyond an economic discourse but in the context of a sustainability worldview52.
To prepare our students to cope with change and uncertainty, we need to encourage them to develop the conceptual abilities to identify and question current marketing assumptions, practices and discourses and to accept paradox and ambiguity (Catterall et al., 2002, p.186). 53
51 There is a need for new critical pedagogy to meet the challenges of globalisation and multiculturalism and radical democratisation to counter the trend toward the imposition of the neo-liberal business model on education (Kellner, 2003).
52 Mabry (2011) utilised assignments as a mechanism through which the sustainability paradigm could be taught to students.
53 Pedagogically, learning processes with conventional didactic processes such as content-based learning are inherently flawed. Didactic teaching may be appropriate for the teaching of facts but inappropriate when you are trying to make facts problematic (Catterall et al., 2005).
35
The sustainability discourse provides a paradox and ambiguity to the marketing discipline because it is rooted in a socio-political and moral context. These contexts provide an alternate paradigm in which marketing theory can be developed and constructed in a critical space. Such alternate ways of flexible forms of thinking have been referred to as “metacritique” (Moore, 2011, p.261). However, the sustainability discourse appears absent from or has little representation of “metacritique” within the marketing curriculum.
As suggested by Catterall et al. (2005), a curriculum that is grounded in its historical, social and political contexts remains invisible, marginalised or added on to the existing curriculum and these are not produced in ways that appeal to potential marketing audiences and are conducted by academics outside the discipline. This is supported in earlier discussion, where the stronghold of the DSP has filtered into academic marketing research and limited the focus of marketing research. Currently critical perspectives in marketing, with their ability to shock, provoke and articulate the unthinkable, provide a counterpoint to mainstream marketing work, which may also help halt any drift by the discipline into self-complacency (Catterall et al., 2002, p.187).
In concluding this section related to critical marketing theory, the importance of the historical, social, political and moral context for marketing curriculum cannot be dismissed. Critical marketing theory presupposes that academics require agency to develop the marketing curriculum and discipline beyond its existing theoretical domain.
Whilst the pedagogical aspects of critical marketing are not the focus of this research, due consideration must be given by academics to the choices they make over teaching methods and even textbooks.54 Finally, the professional and business context of marketing as a discipline would require some degree of alignment between the academic context and the practical context of the marketing curriculum55. Perhaps the alignment can occur through applying a social context for the marketing curriculum.
54 A scathing criticism offered by Brown (1995, p.683), suggested that marketing texts are ‘clones of Kotler’
infested with ‘bullet points’, learning objectives, pseudo-case studies and normally written in words of one syllable or less.
55 The barriers to the inclusion of sustainability in curriculum must be considered (Wilson & von der Heidt, 2013).
36