Sociology Of Consumption Research Paper

Although household budget research had theoretic-ally interesting results, it had a pretheoretical character. Theory was introduced into sociological research by Marx (1976). According to him, a commodity had both a use value and an exchange value. He further argued that in a market economy the latter began to dominate at the same time as the production relations between people turned into commodity relations. Marx called this phenomenon commodity fetishism. His views had an important effect on the sociology of consumption in the 1900s.

For Marx, consumption was subordinate to production. This idea was common in his time. A human being was understood primarily as a producer—as a homo faber—and the concept of consumer had not yet been invented. Its invention has been attributed to Condillac. However, his concept of consommateur is ambiguous, as it also refers to eating. Perhaps Condillac, like Engel, saw eating as a basic form of consumption. More importantly, however, he conceived the consumer as an abstract entity that satisfied its needs with objects produced for the market.

1. The Classic Stage Of Sociology: The First Wave Of The Sociology Of Consumption

It was only in the classical period of sociology that consumption began to be analyzed as a distinct sphere of action. This period witnessed the first wave of the sociology of consumption. Several of the major sociologists of the time (e.g., Sombart, Weber, Tarde) analyzed consumption as part of the birth of capitalism and the modern way of life, paying special attention to fashion and the consumption of luxury goods. From the viewpoint of the sociology of consumption, the most important of them was Simmel (1930), whose magnum opus dealt with money as the mediator between consumption and various qualitative relations. He also analyzed the significance of consumption as a manifestation of city life and noted how central a mechanism fashion was in the modern world.

Simmel approached fashion from the perspective of social class. The upper strata rejected the prevailing fashion when it began to trickle downwards in the social hierarchy. It is Veblen (1926), however, who is regarded as the main formulator of this ‘trickle down’ theory. He called the way the upper class strived to distinguish itself from other classes ‘conspicuous consumption.’ Its central characteristic is the acquisition of expensive luxury goods with the aim of improving one’s social standing. As the consumption of these goods becomes increasingly common first in the middle class and later in the working class, the upper class has constantly to struggle to show its standing by means of consumption. This is the driving force of consumption. Mills (1976) later emphasized its importance when he wrote about the ‘status panic’ of the middle class.

2. The Second Wave Of The Sociology Of Consumption

The second wave of the sociology of consumption spanned the interwar period and the period immediately following the World War II. Mauss (1925), better known as an anthropologist, was developing a general theory of exchange and gift giving. According to him, the latter is not as selfless an activity as might appear at first glance. The person giving a gift is, in practice, expecting a return present, even though they may deny this. Mauss’ observations were to have a far-reaching influence on the sociology of consumption.

Another line of European sociology that touches upon consumption is connected with the critical theory of the Frankfurt school. On the one hand, Benjamin (1972) continued Simmel’s work in describing city life. He focused on shopping alleys and popular culture as manifestations of modern life. He also studied fashion, but as an indicator of time rather than class. Blumer (1969) continued to develop this theme in the US. On the other hand, Adorno and Horkheimer (1979) criticized the spreading of commodity fetishism through popular culture. They did not restrict their criticism to consumption, though. They used it to show how capitalist society comes to an impasse when it subordinates use value to exchange value. This theme was developed further in both the German sociological tradition, including Haug’s (1971) critique of commodity aesthetics, and in the American sociological tradition that dealt with the artificial aging of products and the manipulation of consumers. This approach has long roots. It reaches back to Adam Smith’s critique of ‘vanity consumption’ and extends to the twenty-first century in the persistent criticism of marketing and consumerism.

In another American research tradition consumption is conceptualized more broadly. Consumers are not considered mere victims of the ‘captains of markets’ but are seen as actively expressing their values and goals through consumption. Lazarsfeld (1982), for example, pointed out that market communication is not etched in consumers’ minds as on an empty board; instead, its message progresses in two stages through opinion leaders to people at large. Even then its reception depends on existing tastes and preferences. This realization led to another: that consumption provides excellent material for the analysis of social change. Riesman (1969), among others, used all sorts of consumption data to describe the moral change in American society. He argued that there remained only one and at the same time the most modern personality type: the ‘other-directed’ personality, for which consumption had become a central dimension in life.

3. The Differentiation Of The Sociology Of Consumption Into A Sphere Of Its Own: The Third Stage Of The Sociology Of Consumption

The third stage of sociological consumption research and, at the same time, the formation of the sub-discipline of the sociology of consumption occurred at the end of the 1970s. While previous sociological analyses were characterized by a great deal of moralizing about consumption, consumption now came to be seen as a meaningful social activity that offers a valuable perspective on society.

The new phase was ushered in by Bourdieu, who had also come to be known as an anthropologist. He ended up describing, by means of consumption, the maintenance of the class structure of French society in a way that resembles Simmel’s and Veblen’s view of status commodities trickling down in the social hierarchy. However, whereas Veblen stresses that consumption becomes an important means of making social distinctions in a situation in which differences are disappearing, Bourdieu (1979) argues that distinctions are embodied in specific habituses and internalized in consumption choices. He is, of course, not the only one who sees consumption as a means of maintaining class barriers and social distinctions. Concurrently with his research, similar studies were being carried out in the Anglo-Saxon world. These studies showed that consumption reflects important social divisions and temporal categories. This research tradition (e.g., Sahlins 1976) departs from Bourdieu’s approach in that it leans primarily on the Durkheimian legacy. Consumption is seen within it as mirroring not only all sorts of social distinctions (class, age, gender, etc.), but also social time and qualities of its social context (feast or everyday life, dining in or out, etc.).

In the 1980s and early 1990s we saw the sociology of consumption characterized by at least four research orientations. First there was the approach, connected with the postmodern turn and influenced by Simmel and Benjamin, which focused on the meanings of consumption. In line with Baudrillard’s theorizing (1988), it argued in the poststructuralist spirit that consumption is not a language. Clothing, food, etc., do not constitute a language-like sign system open to a uniform reading by all members of the same culture. Rather, consumption forms mere systems of classification that become increasingly important as the significance of consumption increases. Attention is thus focused on the role of consumption in the formation of social identities and on the embodiment of consumption. When seen as a crucial building block of identity, consumption has been regarded as an important expression of Zeitgeist. This perspective has been easily adaptable when defending the idea of a post- modern turn.

Then there is the empirically oriented approach centered on food. It analyzes a theme made topical by globalization and by the changing basis of social order: the stability and change of consumption pat- terns. The concrete objects of research include the symbolic dimension of foodstuffs, the national and cultural aspects of meals, the gender-, age-, and class- related forms of eating, eating habits, the ‘problem’ of omnivorousness and eating disorders, eating out, and preparing meals at home, and the fate of the family meal. Sociologists of food have found that food choices are surprisingly stable despite the improved availability of all kinds of foodstuffs. They have also proved that the direction of change is not only from centers to peripheries (‘Macdonaldization’) and that the flow of luxury goods is not only from top to bottom in the social hierarchy: in many cases a dish originally favored by the common people has become popular among upper classes too (like pizza and traditional Chinese meals).

A third research orientation is rooted in the Durkheimian and Maussian tradition dealing with the circulation of commodities. It elaborates on the central features of the institution of gift-giving, focusing on the ways in which an object, qua present, loses the status of commodity, as it is bad taste in Western societies to give presents that are merely commodities with an exchange value. Wrapping the present up in an ornamental package signifies the loss of the commodity status. It is also thought that a gift must be ‘special.’ For it to be experienced as valuable, it must reflect the personality of its giver.

This research tradition has also examined hobbies and exceptional consumption patterns, especially col- lection. It has been found that any product or object can become a collectible, thereby losing its commodity status and gaining a new meaning in relation to the already existing or imaginary parts of a collection. When a collection is seen as ‘complete,’ it can be commodified and sold on the market.

The fourth line of research in the sociology of consumption deals with the questions: What are the aesthetic and other characteristics that make commodities appealing to us? These reflections have resulted in the rejection of various theories of basic needs and pre-established need hierarchies. Needs are, by contrast, seen as mediated by the cultural filter and as historically changing forces that are as much the outcome as the starting point of our activity. In addition, this research orientation addresses the way in which unsatisfied needs give rise to ultimately unsatisfiable desires and how this process contributes to the creation of the consumer society. In this context Campbell (1987) has pointed out how modernization has refined the quantity-oriented hedonism based on the Protestant ethic into quality-oriented hedonism. Contrary to Weber’s view, the romantic ‘spirit’ propitious to self-realization and consumption too has played an important part in this process of refinement.

4. Trends In The Sociology Of Consumption

The meaning–centricity of the sociology of consumption began to be criticized as too cognitivist at the end of the 1990s. This cognitive paradigm is committed to the ideas of agency and reflexivity, neglecting the fact that only part of consumption can be reduced to them. Furthermore, it reduces the entire sphere of consumption to meanings. The focus has been on the external meanings of commodities, usually provided by researchers themselves. From these models re-searchers have deduced the meanings consumers must have intended to convey to others. Although the subjective dimension of consumption (its personal significance) has been studied, the emphasis has still been on its cognitive aspects at the expense of its experiential side. Finally, only ‘public,’ or ‘visible,’ consumption has managed to kindle the interest of cognitively oriented sociologists.

Attempts have therefore been made to broaden the perspective of the sociology of consumption. Of course, the meanings attached to consumption and their connections with the spatiotemporal and social structures of everyday life and identity formation will continue to be analyzed. It is, after all, impossible to imagine consumption without meanings. The central mechanisms of consumption and their connection with social order are also likely to continue to receive attention. Nevertheless, there is evidence to suggest that the sociology of consumption is fragmenting into several approaches.

First, it is evident that researchers are more and more interested in the experiential dimension of consumption and thereby in the emotional bond in the commodity–person relationship. This opens up a new perspective on the consumption-driven process in which individual and collective identities are constructed historically, more or less on the basis of personal emotional sensation.

Second, the nonreflexive aspects of consumption, or consumption routines, are a new focus of research, which addresses the spatial and temporal arrangements of everyday consumption: the gendering of consumption routines (cleaning, cooking, etc.) and their variation with age, ethnic background, and religion. Routines, however, are constantly shaken by change. The accelerating social change, the increasing health awareness, and risks produced by gene technology and product forgery make consumers reflect on their routines and sometimes change them. This has thrown a challenge to sociologists, forcing them to pay attention to people’s ways of dealing with consumption risks. The latter theme has brought the concept of trust to the center of the sociology of consumption too, paving the way for the analysis of trust as a means of routinizing consumption. This research orientation is formulating a theoretically interesting tension between reflexive and nonreflexive action in general.

A third research focus attracting increasing interest is the change in the spatiotemporal experience triggered by the new supergoods—products of information technology that have become part of everyday life. This change not only destroys old forms of sociality and practices connected with them (such as shopping); it is also creating new kind of virtual sociality independent of space and time. How this is constituted and reflected back on information technology is a new challenge for sociology.

The fourth rising line of research in the sociology of consumption is connected with the end results of consumption: wastes, waste management, and the recycling of used products. Both are now billion dollar industries, and research on consumer society is being complemented with research on ‘rubbish society.’ It opens up an interesting perspective on not only waste treatment routines but also on consumers’ opportunities of commodifying their wastes and selling them on waste markets.

The sociologists of consumption do not lack objects of research. Moreover, it should be pointed out that consumption not only reflects social practices but has a dynamic of its own as well. It seems to be a self-sustaining phenomenon. For instance, the idea of a petrol-powered car implies petrol stations. These, again, imply filling up the tank, and so on. This autonomy of consumption, which Simmel noted at the beginning of the twentieth century, is drawing more and more attention, founded on the realization that present consumption choices not only guide future production decisions but also shape our common future in general.

Bibliography:

1. Adorno T, Horkheimer M 1979 The Dialectic of Enlightenment. Verso, Thetford, UK
2. Baudrillard J 1988 Jean Baudrillard: Selected Writings. Polity Press, Cambridge, UK
3. Benjamin W 1972 Gesammelte Schriften. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt, Germany
4. Blumer H 1969 Fashion: From class differentation to collective selection. The Sociological Quarterly 10(3): 275–91
5. Bourdieu P 1979 A Social Critique of the Judgment and Taste. Harward University Press, Cambridge, MA
6. Campbell C 1987 The Romantic Ethic and the Spirit of Modern Consumerism. Blackwell, Oxford, UK
7. Ilmonen K, Pantzar M 1986 Determinants in the modern choice of food. Journal of Consumer Studies and Home Economics 10: 97–110
8. Lazarsfeld P F 1982 The Varied Sociology of Paul F. Lazarsfeld (Writings Collected and Edited by Kendall P L). Columbia University Press, New York
9. Marx K 1976 Capital. Penguin, Harmondsworth, UK
10. Mauss M 1925 The Gift: Form and Functions in Archaic Societies. Cotren and West, London
11. Mills C W 1976 Status panic. In: Feldman S D, Thielbar G W (eds.) Life Styles. Diversity in American Society. 2nd edn. Little & Brown, Boston
12. Riesman D 1969 The Lonely Crowd. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT
13. Sahlins M 1976 Culture and Practical Reason. The Chicago University Press, Chicago and London
14. Simmel G 1930 Philosophie des Geldes, Funfte, un eranderte Auflage. Verlag von Duncker & Humblot, Munich and Leipzig
15. Veblen T 1926 The Theory of Leisure Class: An Economic Study of Institutions. Allen and Unwin, London