A Sociological Critique of Consumption
Shelby Wilhelm
Capstone
Carroll University
Abstract
Operating under and implementing the theoretical frameworks of neoliberalism and the Treadmill of Production (ToP) theory, this paper will unveil what embodies and defines consumer culture in the United States as well as what permits and perpetuates consumer behavior. Consumer behavior today was established over time due to a host of institutions and their development. This paper will examine specifically how advertising, the media and the fashion industry encourage the continuation of elaborate and excessive consumption in the United States. Through the implementation of the work of Karl Marx and Thorstein Veblen and their respective concepts of commodity fetishism, ideology or false consciousness and conspicuous consumption, this paper will argue that consumers buy because they seek to fulfill a sense of pleasure or connectedness as well as to craft their ideal version of self and to convey their superior status and power. This paper will provide a critique on the impact of consumption on the environment, suggesting that the status quo of consumption simply is not viable.
Humans need to consume to survive. It is a matter of fact, both biologically and psychologically, that humans need to consume, at least to a degree, for survival. Psychologically, Abraham Maslow proposed a hierarchy of needs which include physiological, safety, social, esteem and self-actualization needs (Eisenberg, 2009; Csikszentmihalyi, 2000; http://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html). Physiological needs are of primary importance for functioning as a human being and require people to purchase or consume food, water, shelter and clothing. The progression of needs also forces people to attain security, social relationships and consume additional goods and services. Maslow’s hierarchy was expanded to include three additional stages, most importantly of which the addition of aesthetic needs or a search for beauty, which too undoubtedly demands consumption (http://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html).
Social theorist Karl Marx suggests that humans are distinguishable within the animal kingdom from any other species because humans are the only species that not only have the capability of, but also enact the alteration of nature (Seidman, 2013). In some instances, what once qualified as a need, such as clothing, has been elaborately reinvented to allow for abundancy of choices and to sky-rocket prices. On the contrary, what are foolishly excessive wants to many, and even most, have become every day needs for some. The respective definitions of needs and wants have become entirely subjective to the extent that they are sometimes used interchangeably. Objectively, however, both are dictated by economic resources and the ability to buy, including even the most basic of needs. However, this has not always been the case.
Between wants and needs, people in the United States spent $11,044,057 trillion on household consumption expenditures in 2014, an increase of 4.2 percent from 2013 (http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/pce/2015/pdf/pce1215.pdf). Comparatively, people in the United States spend between three and four times more than people in any other country, most closely followed by China, at $3,954,283 trillion (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.CON.PRVT.CD/countries/1W?display=default). Excessive consumption translates to excessive resource extraction and excessive waste, all of which contribute to the current environmental state of degradation and destruction. All things considered, why do people continue to consume in such excessive quantities at such rapid speeds?
Through content analysis and the implementation of neoliberalism and the Treadmill of Production theory (ToP) as theoretical frameworks, this paper will address the looming question of what stimulates consumption. The literature review will elaborate on examinations and explanations of consumer behavior from Karl Marx, Zygmunt Bauman, Colin Campbell, Mary Douglas and Baron Isherwood, Luigi Zoja and Grant McCracken, Daniel Miller, Jean Baudrillard, Thorstein Veblen and Pierre Bourdieu. Thereafter, the history and development of consumption will be explored, as well as how institutions influence and socialize people to buy into the system, followed by more elaborate integration of concepts from Karl Marx and Thorstein Veblen. Lastly, consumption will be critiqued as a social and environmental problem.
Research Question and Hypothesis
This paper seeks to address the question, “What drives consumption and consumer behavior in the United States in the 21st century?” The primary hypothesis for this paper is that consumers buy not only because social institutions instill a sense of need rather than want, but also because consumers seek to fulfill a sense of pleasure as well as to craft their ideal version of self and to convey their superior status and power.
A sociological analysis of consumption patterns and trends is necessary given the lack of research on the topic, at least within the discipline of sociology, as well as the impact on the environment. Well known social theorists, such as Marx and Veblen have posited strong explanations for consumer behavior and implications thereof, yet there has been little to no integration of approaches. Furthermore, a select number of environmental sociologists, Kenneth Alan Gould, David Pellow and Allan Schnaiberg, have focused their works on consumption, but once again there lacks an integrative and comprehensive critique of consumption as a social problem. Taken together, consumption has been understudied from a sociological approach, despite the very real and profound influence on the environment, as well as society as a whole. It is the hope that the findings of this research not only shed light on the false consciousness, commodity fetishism and conspicuous consumption that drive consumer behavior, but also to create societal and behavioral changes that dictate current production and consumption patterns.
Methodology
Content analysis will be implemented as the method of research for this critique of consumption. This research method was chosen given the number of strengths it offers for a topic of this nature. Content analysis allows for a breadth of sources and information to be considered. More precisely, the inclusion of historical data and the documented development and growth of consumption as well as influencing agents and factors enriches the depth of the research. Additionally, content analysis greatly enhances the analysis of the intentions and impact of media, advertising and fashion as influencing institutions on consumer behavior.
Content analysis will be implemented in partnership with neoliberalism and the ToP as theoretical frameworks to critique consumption. Economic neoliberalism gained popularity in the 1970s as economic policy principled on a free-market economy with privatization, minimal governmental regulation and the dissolution of public interest with the goal of accumulating as much capital as possible (Martinez and Garcia, http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376 ). Consequently, great promotion of individualism and freedom of choice flooded mainstream American culture. The Treadmill of Production Theory (ToP) was developed by Allan Schaniberg in 1980 to explain the radical changes to the system of production that were creating booming environmental destruction from 1945-1980 (Gould, Pellow and Schnaiberg, 2008). Schnaiberg and colleagues dispelled unfounded myths and excuses of population growth and “runaway technology” as the causal means of the environmental downturn. Instead, they argued that following World War II, the desires to increase capital and expand investments unequivocally forced the increased consumption of natural resources, pointing the finger straightaway at capitalism and neoliberalism. Corporations are continuously placing exceedingly exponential demands on the environment at the current rate of operation which has and continues to far surpass the finite capacity of the planet. The perpetuation of both states of being, neoliberalism and Treadmill of Production, not only creates, but maintains the role of the consumer in advancing economic, environmental and social problems.
Literature Review
Sociologist George Ritzer defines America as a society of hyper-consumption because Americans consume more, at a higher degree, than essentially anywhere else in the world (Perez and Esposito, 2010). Within academia, consumption has been defined and explained metaphorically in a variety of different ways, often depending on time, place and discipline of the theorist. Herbert Marcuse conceptualizes consumption as an addiction in which once people enter the vicious cycle driven by desire, they feel compelled to continue, falling even further into the grasp of capitalism and overconsumption (Perez and Esposito, 2010; Sassatelli, 2007). Despite the fact that happiness and consumption share no direct correlation, the attitude and addiction behind it does not seem to be ceasing, let alone lessening. Alan Durning suggests that consumption is relative to one’s surroundings of time and place and that it needs only to be an excess of those measures, while Julet Schor defends the theory that consumption is dictated by competition and “being the best” (Perez and Esposito, 2010). On the other hand, Frank Trentmann discusses the label of consumer as a “master category of collective and individual identity” (Lury, 2011, 9). Other popular interpretations of consumer behavior originate from Marx, Bauman, Campbell, Douglas and Isherwood, Zoja and McCracken, Miller, Baudrillard, Veblen and Bourdieu.
Karl Marx, a well-known social theorist, focused his work on illuminating the contradictions of capitalism and the human connection to the economic system (Allan, 2011; Corrigan, 1997; Seidman, 2013). Marx contended that human nature and societal development were directly and inexplicably predicated by economics, and more specifically the process of production and consumption. He also contended that capitalism created an ideology or false consciousness that blinded humans to the dangers of capitalism, which they were continually contributing to by participating in the very system detrimental to themselves. Again, as the necessity of capitalism is constant growth, Marx explored commodification. He claimed that “commodification translates all human activity and relations into objects that can be bought and sold” (Allan, 2011, 112).
Similarly, Polish sociologist Zygmunt Bauman too asserted that individuals created social relationships and their connectedness within society through consumption or their identity as a consumer (Bauman, 2002; Patterson, 2008). “To consume . . . means to invest in one’s own social membership, which in a society of consumers translates as ‘saleability’: obtaining qualities for which there is already a market demand” (Patterson, 2008, 469). Moreover, Bauman suggests that the act of consuming grants people a sense of control and security because they can make a simple exchange of money for ownership (Jacobsen and Poder, 2016). Additionally, consumption demands repetitive purchasing to replace outdated and no longer interesting objects with new and trendy items. Together Marx and Bauman focus on the necessity of accumulation and overproduction within capitalism, but also how strongly peoples’ sense of self, being and existence are dependent upon their identity as a consumer, and secondarily as a producer within the very same system.
Colin Campbell similarly echoed the notion that consumption was interwoven with human existence, but did so from a lens of Romanticism in which Campbell explained the ethic associated with consumption (Corrigan, 1997; Sassatelli, 2007). Campbell linked Romanticism and consumption together through the commonality or central object of both, the self. Romanticism shifted thinking around improvement and individualism as that which could or should be fulfilled through new and various types of gratification, hence consumption. However, Campbell also differentiated necessity from luxury, noting luxuries as “the way to pleasure rather than mere comfort” (Corrigan, 1997, 15). As such, consumers seek pleasure in their experiences, and in contrast to traditional times, expect pleasure not only in the form of emotion, but also in every experience as opposed to once in a while. Likewise to Bauman, Campbell came to the conclusion that consumption was a method of control, the emotion consumers were after when buying.
On the contrary, Mary Douglas and Baron Isherwood evaluated consumption and argued its purpose was two-fold, to establish and preserve social relationships and social connectedness and to distinguish “visible and stable cultural categories” (Corrigan, 1997, 18) . Douglas and Isherwood approached consumption from an anthropological standpoint by focusing on social meaning and the conveyance of culture and agreement through material goods (Douglas and Isherwood, 2002). For example, buying products for home decoration or gift giving demonstrated what an individual valued, believed to be beautiful, important or luxurious. Commodities, Douglas and Isherwood claimed, should be viewed as a “nonverbal medium for the human creative faculty” (Douglas and Isherwood, 2002, 71). A common critique of Douglas and Isherwood is the absence of the influence of media, advertisements and institutions within the discourse around determining meaning of objects (Lury, 2011). Instead, Douglas and Isherwood contended that individuals had the freedom to define meaning.
Although also implementing an anthropological lens on consumption, Luigi Zoja viewed consumption as “the primary ritual of modern society”. While this was an extension of Douglas and Isherwood, Zoja did not explicitly focus on the ability to define meaning, an important distinction between the two (Perez and Esposito, 2010, 85). Zoja and Douglas and Isherwood both emphasized the importance and prevalence of ritual in society as a means of communicating meaning that stabilizes social relationships, connectedness and inclusion (Corrigan, 1997; Douglas and Isherwood, 2002; Lury, 2011). Grant McCracken further clarified and identified three types of rituals present within a material society, possession, gift giving and divestment or investment rituals (Lury, 2011). Simplified here, the possession ritual is defined as collecting goods which exhibits control of a highly desirable product or idea. Gift giving or the transfer of goods effectively equates to the transfer of a feeling or emotion. Divestment and investment are respective processes in which a consumer attempts to establish new ownership and control over something previously owned or attempts to disassociate with an object they intend to part with in order to avoid losing any part or sense of self upon its getting rid of.
Daniel Miller too approached consumption from an anthropological vantage point, yet did so by describing five ways in which material goods were embedded within social relationships (Lury, 2011). Miller contests that the five ways in which goods impact relationships are through function, the self, space, time and style. The functionality of objects is essentially the purpose they serve to fulfill or assist in an action. The self or individual identity is constructed of objects that are used to express gender, interests and style. Space is valued due to either the value of the creation or manifestation location, while time can convey newness, oldness or a label as an up and coming style or something antique or vintage. Objects are stylized by being compared and contrasted in a similar time and space by similar levels of analysis. Miller specifically emphasizes style because of its inherent ability in the modern world to provide relatability and define identity.
While many view consumption from an individual, interactionist perspective, Jean Baudrillard takes a systematic, macro-level approach in which he argues that humans have individual agency stripped from them, and instead that the system of production, as referred to frequently by Marx, creates the system of needs (Corrigan, 1997; Kellner, 1989; Sassatelli, 2007). However, dissimilarly to Marx, Baudrillard shifts attention away from production of individual items, and instead focuses attention on the sense of need that humans then experience. This need that exists in a consumer society is one that, contrary to some arguments, is not innate, as if it were, it would not continually grow. Baudrillard suggests that the sense of need or want is a broad sense of need not directly or explicitly attached to a singular object or type of object. As such, the desire that exists is not motivated by pleasure, as proposed by Campbell, but as a means to sustain capitalism. Yet, as Douglas and Isherwood maintained, Baudrillard too sold the notion of objects or goods fulfilling a role of communication between individuals, but also as a means of enacting culture. One of the greatest differences in Baudrillard’s perspective on consumption is that rather than serving as a performance of freedom and individual choice, he counters that the act of consumption and role of the consumer is exploited and dictated by the system of capitalism, similar to Marx’s belief of production (Corrigan, 1997).
Nearly one hundred years prior, one of the first works on consumption, was Veblen’s Theory of the Leisure Class, written in 1899 (Corrigan, 1997, Sassatelli, 2007, Veblen, 1934). Veblen focused on status defined by class and wealth and its function in society. He maintained that behavioral demonstration and enactment were necessary to convey one’s wealth, so others would be aware of their status and could thereby admire and treat their superiors with due respect and esteem. Veblen distinguished two primary methods of conveying wealth and status, conspicuous leisure and conspicuous consumption (Veblen, 1934).While conspicuous leisure uses time to convey wealth and status, conspicuous consumption utilizes goods. Abstaining from labor associated with production constituted leisurely activity. Instead, the wealthy were intended to commit their energy to exuding proper etiquette of a superior class, for example through language. Moreover, the notion of wealth could be furthered by the acquisition of hired help or servants (Corrigan, 1997). Conspicuous consumption on the other hand, referred to the consumption of goods beyond the level necessary for survival, even if that meant becoming an alcoholic. Contrarily, Pierre Bourdieu focused his work on achieving a non-monetary form of currency or distinction through cultural capital.
Bourdieu believed cultural capital was a different, but complementary, form of capital to financial capital that was rooted in educational attainment, so more advanced education was indicative of higher status (Corrigan, 1997; Sassatelli, 2007; Zukin and Smith Maguire, 2004). Bourdieu organized four combined levels of cultural capital and financial capital in which the people who resided in each category enacted and abided by a certain culture. Bourdieu believed that “each act of consumption reproduces social difference” (Corrigan, 1997, 28). Consumption was indicative of status whether it was to benefit and indicate someone was a member of a wealthy, educated class or serve to disadvantage someone by making apparent that they belonged to a lower class. Objects were organized in a hierarchy so differentiation in class was easily deciphered. However, objects also needed to be fluid and redefined as objects became more easily attainable for individuals outside of the upper class to conform to or enact, a concept easily demonstrated by fashion.
Even considering the massive offerings to explain consumption, there lacks any integrative approach that addresses environmental impact in conjunction with the aforementioned social thinkers. This paper intends to close that gap and offer a much needed comprehensive explanation for consumption so the excessive, over-the-top behavior can be modified.
Consumption
Annual retail sales for 2014 surpassed five trillion dollars according to the United States Census Bureau, and consumer spending is said to account for over two-thirds of national economic growth (http://www.census.gov/retail/index.html; Zukin, 2009). It is no surprise then that
“shopping shapes our daily paths through space and time; major purchases…mark ritual stages in our life. We separate ourselves from others by deciding where to shop and what to buy…shopping is both a tedious chore and moral preoccupation” (Zukin, 2009, 2). “shopping is how we satisfy our need to socialize – to feel like we are a part of social life” (Zukin, 2009, 7). “shopping is a way of pursuing value” (Zukin, 2009, 8). “shopping is a complex system for integrating people into the world of goods” (Zukin, 2009, 13).
Sharon Zukin offers a wide array of explanations and descriptions of the role, purpose and placement of shopping within American society. Shopping is, of course, the act or activity one engages in whenever consumption occurs, yet shopping can also exist free from consumption. Consumption is the act of purchasing a material good or service, but for the purpose of this paper, consumption will be used to more commonly refer to goods. Goods then are conceptualized as groceries, clothing, vehicles, home décor, music, arts, electronics and anything that comprises the “stuff” of life.
What compels the extreme consumption of the American people? Utilizing neoliberalism and the Treadmill of Production theory (ToP) as theoretical frameworks, this research seeks to address and provide a compelling answer to that very question. Neoliberalism and ToP were selected because they encapsulate what motivates consumption as well as frame it as a social problem. A review of the history of consumption, from the rise of department stores to the availability of credit cards, will elaborate on the evolution of platforms and a society that promotes and caters to constant and abundant consumption. Secondly, influential institutions, in particular advertising and the media, as well as the fashion industry, will be discussed in regards to their respective contributions to creating and maintaining a consumer culture. Lastly, the works and claims of Karl Marx and Thorstein Veblen will be explored and integrated to provide a comprehensive explanation for why Americans have bought their way to being a consumer culture. Together, this paper intends to demonstrate that the co-existence of capitalism and neoliberalism function as an ideology or religion that has created and sustains the addiction to consumption that is inseparable from the collective narrative and defines the collective identity of the United States. In the 21st century, consumption has come to revolve around the self, others and the interaction(s) between the two, such as identity development and distinction or separation from others. The capitalist and neoliberal ideologies generate a false consciousness which clouds judgment and the ability for people to conceive of human existence divergent from current practice.
Theoretical Frameworks
Treadmill of Production Theory
Allan Schnaiberg coined the Treadmill of Production theory (ToP) in the 1980s. Schnaiberg explained the treadmill as resulting from the interaction of two processes, advancements in technology and keeping up with sufficient economic support for the exponentially increasing population (Schnaiberg and Gould, 1994). Schnaiberg claimed that the only way for corporations to continue to exist, if not be successful, in such a competitive market was to meet the demand for constant growth and expansion to generate wealth. The other five key tenets of the ToP are the
“…movement of workers into wage jobs contingent on continual expansion of production…competitive struggle between businesses necessitates…allocation of accumulated wealth to new, revolutionary technologies that serve to expand production…wants are manufactured in a manner that creates an insatiable hunger for more…government becomes…responsible for promoting national economic development while ensuring some degree of ‘social security’…dominant means of communication and education are part of the treadmill” (Foster, 2005, 8).
While the government could be facilitating and acting in the best interests of and to serve the people, government officials and lawmakers are by no means impartial or bias-free in the process. Economic neoliberalism removed any substantial protection or regulation to keep either the environment or worker protected. Neoliberalism took capitalism to new heights as a faulty system deeply engrained in mainstream US society that has and continues to demonstrate a strong negative correlational relationship with environmental degradation (Schnaiberg and Gould, 1994; Gould, Pellow and Schnaiberg, 2008). The most pressing issue, as also suggested by Marx, is overproduction. The focus of ToP is primarily on production and secondarily on consumption because it is the corporations and big businesses that hold the decision-making power in resource removal and allocation (Gould et al., 2008). Capitalism operates on overproduction, and as such, the ownership for the respective environmental impact falls on the industry. Gould et al. (2008) goes so far as to suggest that consumers have “no power to determine market processes” (21). However, media and advertising, as well as the responsive consumption, prompt parallel responsibility and blame on to the consumer. Simply put, businesses would not produce a commodity if there was not a market for it.
Neoliberalism
In the 1930s, the United States embodied Keynesian economics, promoting spending since that would help the United States recuperate from the economic downturn of the Great Depression (Zukin, 2009). There was tremendous influx of goods, which were primarily consumed by the government and military forces during World War II. However, postwar, the responsibility to keep the economy afloat shifted to the consumer. The emergence of dedicated space and business for entertainment as pastimes meant consumers had more accessible and affordable leisure items. As globalization transplanted jobs overseas, more and more jobs became service and administrative focused, as opposed to factory work, again stressing the importance of consumption as individuals’ role and duty within the economic system.
Economic neoliberalism, referred to as an updated or modernized version of liberal economics or Reaganomics, developed to allow for extreme capital accumulation with minimal government interference. Economic neoliberalism and the ToP emerged practically simultaneously, and rather organically, with neoliberalism as the cause and ToP as the effect. Neoliberalism exists as an extension of capitalism in which lesser governmental intervention and restriction allows for greater freedom and control in the hands of few, the rich.
History of Consumption
Industrialization redefined virtually every facet of society including the household, workplace, transportation, communication and beyond. Industrialization as well as urban development and the evolving roles of women in the public sphere incited the construction, and thereby widespread growth and presence, of department stores from 1850-1890 (Benson, 1986). Prior to the expansion of department stores, shopping existed in a dichotomy of both location and goods, either as a rural general store or a high-end specialty store in the downtown of a city (Benson, 1986; Zukin, 2009). Department stores offered everything one could ever need, and more, all in the convenience of one location. To boot, stores added other conveniences to meet food and beverage needs and wants, which resulted in charging for the item in public versus the comparatively cheaper version of item in one’s own house. In addition, this would commonly cause customers to spend extended periods of time in stores and thus increase the size of purchases. Furthermore, lounge furniture, sales associates and music were also added to the environment to enhance customers’ experiences by creating a leisurely space separate from reality.
Department stores revolutionized shopping by offering a greater array of goods and variety of types or brands of individual goods, complimented by the freedom to look without any obligation of buying, the establishment of a formalized one-price, bargaining free system as well as the opportunity for returns if a customer was unsatisfied (Benson, 1986). Previously, it was common to acquire and exchange goods based on a bartering system, free from money. Yet even when a common currency was established and mandated, pricing was generally negotiated. Both the one-price system and obligation-free shopping were practical and intentional practices that were implemented to ensure that a consistent profit would be made on the same product regardless of employee involvement, as well as to allow for, or secretly encourage, impulse buying. The establishment of department stores resulted in competition between stores, the opportunity to compare prices by viewing the same items at multiple stores, servicing a consumption-centered broader audience or consumer base as a result of increased accessibility for transportation, space for females in public and a commodified middle-class (Corrigan, 1997).
Stores and owners prided themselves on remaining up-to-date, if not ahead of the curve, on up and coming fashions and trends (Benson, 1986). However, in order to make that a financially feasible process, stores were required to get “old” items out of the store, even if it meant losing money or breaking even. As a result, department stores fashioned clearance mark-downs and occasional holiday or end-of-the-year sales in order to bring new and fresh goods to the shelves. Department stores catered toward “want buying” in addition to or in place of “need buying” still present today.
At a bare minimum, shopping offered an outlet for gathering and socializing free from everyday reality. Stores provided “brightness and change to many who at other times pass their days in the dull monotony of a struggle to live” (Benson, 1986, 17). Stores offered an equitable scenery and environment, separate from the outside world, in which all could at least look and be in the presence of, if not immersed in, a space seemingly removed from everyday life.
The introduction of credit cards in the 1960s into the system of monetary exchange drastically broadened the possibilities for consumption. There was no longer forced cash exchange for ownership. Customers could shop without experiencing a feeling of losing something or handing over anything significant by instead swiping a plastic card. Although credit cards act somewhat similarly to cash, the meaning of cash translates differently when having to count dollar bills versus effortlessly sliding a card. Credit cards gifted customers, or so it seemed, the ability to charge fees to an abstract world which could quickly swell to an abundance of debt. Consumers began purchasing larger, high-ticket items without knowing when or how to pay them off. They experienced the bliss of instant gratification without having to supply concrete payment in the moment.
Online shopping also transformed the shopping experience. Consuming became more accessible and more thoughtless than ever before as consumers were permitted the ability to purchase from the comfort of one’s home, the library or workplace. Continued technological advancement also granted the ability to purchase from one’s cellphone as many became equipped with the capacity for wireless connection, essentially expanding the buying location to wherever one desired.
Institutions
Advertising and The Media
Schnaiberg and Gould (1994) contend, in a very sociological approach that “major institutions of modern society are ‘addicted’ to economic growth and treadmill expansion” (92). Regarding consumption, and aside from economics, the most influential institutions are advertising and the media and the fashion industry. Advertising is the “activity of explicitly paying for media space or time in order to direct favorable attention to certain goods or services” (Turow and McAllister, 2009, 2). Advertisements inherently rely on an ideology or doctrine of consumption by targeting an audience, selling a commodity and persuading the behavior of consumers. Some researchers go so far as to say that advertisements condition a psychological response in the minds of consumers as was demonstrated by the work of Ivan Pavlov (Berger, 2011).
In the 1920s, the media and advertisers forged paths together, and advertisements comprised nearly two-thirds of the income for newspapers and magazines (Leiss et al., 2005). Their integration redefined what advertising could be and how it could impress upon consumers the need to consume the best goods and services. Beginning in the 1920s as well, advertising sold a new notion of satisfaction in which ads played to consumers vulnerabilities of desire and emotion. Advertisers paid greater attention to and intentionally placed advertisements in a particular space or setting with cultural implications. The emotions of ads distracted, as they continue to today, from rationality and reason in the decision-making process (Berger, 2011). This movement facilitated, at least in part, the transition to a consumer culture and society (Leiss et al., 2005). Demonstration of success, satisfaction and fulfillment shifted the focus of advertising from the product to the consumer in the advertisement. When consumers buy, they do so at least partially because of the misguided sense of satisfaction or emotional gain witnessed by consumers who own or experience a commodity.
Media provided an ease in reaching much larger audiences as well as heightened the frequency in which advertisers could do so. Then, in the 1960s, a boom in branding and labeling drastically restructured advertising, buying and selling (Zukin, 2009). Brands performed as means to “satisfy our cravings for individual identity, social status and a sense of membership in a national culture” (Zukin, 2009, 15). The structure and format directly corresponded with purpose of advertisements in terms of catering to wants versus needs. Over the 1900s, advertisement format shifted from “product-information format to product-image format to personalized format to lifestyle format to accommodate just those things: information for utility, symbolism for personal use, personalization for gratification and lifestyle for social context” (Leiss et al., 2005, 201). Growth of advertising during the 20th century brought about changes still apparent today, most profoundly that it “promises to remedy a ‘lack’ in the consumer that advertising itself has created: it is not the product but the person who is inadequate…turns the ‘self’ into a ‘commodity self’ and matches goods to persons” (Corrigan, 1997, 74).
Modern advertising involves six elements, five of which are crucial for defining the modern age: over the top language to embellish a commodity, the role of governmental regulation and allowance, abundance of advertisements in time and space, transition from informational, text-heavy advertisements to visual imagery and the addition of people to sell products (in essence, walking and talking advertisements). America has become a true consumer society, not to be mistaken as a materialistic society, in part thanks to how advertisements market commodities. If indeed the US were a materialistic society, consumers would be satisfied with what Raymond Williams deems use-value. (Turow and McAllister, 2009) Advertisements instead sell an emotion, experience and an obscured sense of control and agency within a system to make choices and construct life.
Fashion
Fashion is but one selling point to advertisements, while also being its very own industry, and one with far-reaching and impressive influence. Fashion does not explicitly refer to clothing, although clothing is most referred to within the conversation of fashion. Fashion acts as a means of communication on both an individual level as well as within the collective. Clothing conveys identity and presents personal style while also placing individuals and groups of people within the context of surroundings and expectations of society. The social world grants artifacts and commodities meaning and power, so much so that Alison Lurie claims clothing is essentially a visual language (Davis, 1994, 3). Historically, clothing was, or could be, indicative of not only socioeconomic status, but also occupation or religious affiliation. Davis contends fashion functions to clarify an ambivalence and ambiguity of identities, “youth versus age, masculinity versus femininity, androgyny versus singularity…work versus play…conformity versus rebellion” (Crane, 2000, 13).
People commonly, although not necessarily consciously, buy into the ideology of fashion as well by suggesting that certain clothing exudes confidence or allows them to present their “self” in heightened and various manners around certain people and in various environments as needed or desired. Thompson and Haytko maintain that fashion allows consumers to “forge self-defining social distinctions and boundaries, to construct narratives of personal history, to interpret the interpersonal dynamics of their social spheres, to understand their relationship to consumer culture, … and to transform and…contest conventional social categories, particularly having strong gender associations” (Crane, 2000, 13).
Why Consumption?
What truly compels the excessive consumption of the American people? Why do consumers continue with such behaviors despite awareness of manipulative means such as advertisements? Karl Marx and Thorstein Veblen offer two convincing arguments that when considered independently fail to account for all aspects of the obsession called consumption. However, when the two are considered in a complementary fashion, they provide a comprehensive explanation for the addictive behavior. Marx contends that capitalism is the ideology of those who live in or under a capitalist society (Allan, 2011; Seidman, 2013). People are so blindly focused on consumption and capitalism as a way of life that they cannot possibly fathom anything beyond it. Consumers’ judgments and perspectives are extremely narrow-minded as if they have blinders on that obfuscate the possibility of any alternative existence of capitalism or other economic system. Similar to religion as described by Durkheim, capitalism is the broad overarching church so to speak, the believers and followers are the people of the United States, the sacred object is money, beliefs range from sales being good, to high-end items conveying status or worth and practices of gift-giving, ritual shopping, impulse buying and excessive consumption (A. Routhe, personal communication, February 17, 2016). Melford Spiro too discusses ideology within the context of religion and highlights five ways in which one can “learn” an ideology or way of knowing, each of which transcends the next, strengthening the belief and heightening the impact from learning, understanding, believing, organizing around and internalizing (Turow and McAllister, 2009).
The way in which Marx conceived of capitalism and human nature was inherently different from other sociologists. Marx claimed the economy was the principal way humans survived, connected and existed (Allan, 2011; Seidman, 2013). As an economic system, capitalism exists only because of alienation. The two simply can’t exist separately, at least not for capitalism to continue. Capitalism revolves around private property for one, but also alienation or separation from the product, the work process, others and one’s self. Marx suggests that the greater the alienation, the greater the distortion of false consciousness. As human’s species being is to produce and engage in economic activity, the alienation of capitalism leads consumers left searching for connection to other things and people. Capitalism as a system creates commodities and relies on commodities to continue to exist, thus it commodifies virtually everything to gain profit and allow for more investment. “It is, however, just this ultimate money-form of the world of commodities that actually conceals, instead of disclosing, the social character of private labour, and the social relations between the individual producers” (Marx, 1967, 76).
Commodity fetishism explains that false consciousness drives never-ending consumption in an empty attempt to fulfill desires of happiness, success, freedom, control, comfort and connectedness. Marx explains that
“…the productions of the human brain appear as independent beings endowed with life, and entering into relation both with one another and the human race. So it is in the world of commodities with the products of men’s hands. This I call Fetishism which attaches itself to the products of labour, so soon as they are produced as commodities, and which is therefore inseparable from the production of commodities” (1967, 72).
Because consumers cannot separate themselves from their economic system rooted in consumption, they buy products to demonstrate and enact a role they falsely believe grants them power. Commodification occurs on a constant basis everywhere and of everything in any time and space.
“A commodity is therefore a mysterious thing, simply because in it the social character of men’s labour appears to them as an objective character stamped upon the product of that labour; because the relation of the producers to the sum total of their own labour is presented to them as a social relation, existing not between themselves, but between the products of their labour. This is the reason why the products of labour become commodities, social things whose qualities are at the same time perceptible and imperceptible by the sense” (Marx, 1967, 72).
Beyond that, consumption and forced engagement in capitalism consume a great portion of peoples’ lives, not to mention their very human nature per Marx’s suggestion. As such, being a consumer is often viewed as a consistently defining individual and collective characteristic of identity.
While excessive consumption without a doubt places American consumers in a singular category, consumption behaviors as explained by Veblen demonstrate attempts to distinguish and set apart from others. Within the social world of a capitalist society, money often determines social status. However, Veblen did not believe wealth in it of itself to be sufficient (1934). Rather, Veblen perceived wealth to be essentially pointless if one fails to “act rich” because the social prestige associated with wealth is only achieved if one enacts and displays their riches (Corrigan, 1997). Originally, Veblen conceived of both conspicuous leisure and conspicuous consumption simultaneously. However, each is intended to explain existence and behavior in different times, places and systems. Conspicuous consumption is more prevalent in capitalistic societies whereas conspicuous leisure is more commonly employed in feudal systems. Despite the different terminology, both share the objective of displaying one’s economic superiority. Conspicuous consumption is said to be paramount to leisure because it allows one to parade their wealth amongst all of society, whereas leisure is restricted to those who are also within an exclusionary, private space, such as a club or household. “The consumption of luxuries, in the true sense, is a consumption directed to the comfort of the consumer himself, and is, therefore, a mark of the master” (Veblen, 1934, 72). Barbara Kruger, an American artist, conceptualized Veblen’s notion of conspicuous consumption perfectly with her work, “I shop, therefore I am” (Zukin, 2009, 17).
When consumption is the primary source of distinction, as is suggested by the Veblenian perspective, fashion dominates as the method of demonstrating one’s wealth (Corrigan, 1997).
“…expenditure on dress has this advantage over most other methods, that our apparel is always in evidence and affords an indication of our pecuniary standing to all observers at the first glance. It is also true that admitted expenditure for display is more obviously present, and is, perhaps, more universally practised in the matter of dress than in any other line of consumption” (Veblen, 1934, 167).
To further support this claim, Veblen explains that conspicuous consumption is wasteful and only individuals with the financial means to constantly replace and update commodities are able to do so, which is why fashion changes so frequently. The wealthier one is, the more they can consume in a manner detached from subsistence. Moreover, Veblen proposed that beauty was defined both by cost and/or wastefulness. “In order to be reputable it must be wasteful” (Veblen, 1934, 96). The malleable notion of beauty that is easily proven to be a social construction is defined in this instance on ease of accessibility and financial means. “If these articles of consumption are costly, they are felt to be noble and honorific” (Veblen, 1934, 70). Although fashion was the predominant means of conspicuous consumption, it also incorporated the over the top purchasing and consumption of alcohol and narcotics, even to the point of drunkenness. “Since the consumption of these more excellent goods is an evidence of wealth, it becomes honorific; and conversely, the failure to consume in due quantity and quality becomes a mark of inferiority and demerit” (Veblen, 1934, 74).
German sociologist Georg Simmel expanded on Veblen’s concept of conspicuous consumption by describing a trickle-down effect (Corrigan, 1997). Whereas Veblen’s reference to conspicuous consumption extended beyond fashion, Simmel specifically focused on fashion. Simmel crafted this theory similarly to his larger view of the world, in a dualistic fashion where generalization and specialization represented the poles of the dichotomy. Simmel spoke to the process of middle-class and low-class persons acquiring the same goods as the wealthy. He explained it in such a way that low-class and poor people emulate wealthy individuals in a concerted effort to acquire their prestige and standing, regardless of whether it was reflective of their occupation or existed in their realm of possibility. Simmel contends that there is a backward optimism of sorts that poorer people mistakenly believe which tells them that embodying a visual depiction of wealth could in fact bring them wealth, or at least the associated respect and recognition from the social world.
A critique of Veblen that could also be applied to Simmel is that both theories are too narrow because they ignore the influence and implications of social identities beyond economic status (Corrigan, 1997; Dunlap, 2010). McCracken provides further critique, but specifically in reference to Simmel. McCracken points to an error in the naming of Simmel’s trickle-down theory and so renamed it to chase and flight theory in part because of the fragmentation of society, but also because the acquisition of “wealthy fashion” did not occur by osmosis, but as a result of direct and intentional effort (Corrigan, 1997). When implementing Veblen’s concept of conspicuous consumption theorists need to be careful not to minimize the importance of identities other than class, and rather opt for an updated version that considers ethnicity, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. while still recognizing that socio-economic status serves as a super identifier much like the economy serves as the superstructure of society (Corrigan, 1997; Dunlap, 2010). In yet another critique, sociologist Riley E. Dunlap urges for the acknowledgment of the influence of cultural capital, as founded by Bourdieu, because “the meaning of people’s behaviors” or consumption for the purposes of this argument, “is not entirely of their own making but is part of a larger semiotic” (2010).
In addition to cultural capital, obsolescence is part of a larger semiotic in the realm of consumption. “…‘common sense’ modern values like efficiency, convenience and obsolescence were greatly enhanced – if not created – by consumer culture”, all of which are strongly related to environmental impact (Turow and McAllister, 2009, 25). Efficiency, or productivity, seemingly erases any broader conscious thought about the production process or implications of normalizing such productivity. Convenience saves consumers from “wasting” their time and effort and transplants that responsibility to producers at an unnecessary monetary and ecological cost. There exists a care-free attitude around the trade-off of obtaining instant gratification without any consideration of the implications thereof, and that extends to obsolescence as well.
Planned obsolescence can be explained as the “increasing emphasis on continuous product development promotes shorter durables replacement and disposal cycles with troublesome environment consequences” (Guiltinan, 2009, 19). Planned obsolescence is often discussed in reference to ethics within the public sphere and less commonly housed within environmental science or sociology, despite its very real and negative consequences. Two pin-pointed issues that are part of product design as they relate to planned obsolescence are the demand for rapid production to stay afloat in a competitive market and the recyclability of products (Guiltinan, 2009). Joseph Guiltinan, a marketing professor, highlights physical and technical obsolescence as the most frequent forms of planned obsolescence which prompt new design for reasons of “limited functional life, limited repair, aesthetics that lead to reduced satisfaction and fashion or functional enhancement” (2009, 20). World Business Council on Sustainable Development urges consumers to opt for more environmentally friendly, efficient and sustainable goods and services (Guiltinan, 2009). Planned obsolescence is but one of many hurdles that needs to be overcome to begin to move in the correct direction.
Conclusion
The peoples of the United States have cultivated an insatiable appetite for consumption that has not only reached, but far surpassed, the threshold of addiction. The problem of this addiction, as suggested by ToP, is the irreversible environmental destruction caused by the breadth and depth of production and consumption. Ultimately, the interrelated guiding propellants of advertising, the media and fashion feed off the innate human desire of connectedness and identity. Correspondingly, in 21st century America, competition, power and status rule all and societal norms define success as wealth. Moreover, the ideology ingrained in existing monopoly capitalism and neoliberalism obscures any fathomed being of anything beyond capitalism. The once championed and still believed assumption of industrial societies that “they can progress by conquering nature and expanding production” (Schnaiberg and Gould, 1994, v), is no longer, if ever it was, true. The environment has graciously provided a multitude of warning signs cautioning the system’s continuance, and yet institutions and consumers continue to blatantly ignore them. At the current rate, people won’t realize this tragedy until it is too late. Or is it already? The Treadmill of Production theory campaigns for the demolition of capitalism if true and absolute environmentally-sound progress is to be acquired. As Gould et al. see it,
“If the treadmill is truly unsustainable both socially and ecologically, at some point it must either exhaust the planet’s capacity to provide economically necessary resource pools and waste sinks or produce such deep, widespread social suffering that the vast majority forcibly dismantles it” (2008, 99).
Whether it be for reasons of validation, identity construction, distinction, relationship construction or the fallacy of choice and control, the environment has provided due warning and the time is now for a drastic paradigm shift toward consumption in the United States. Rising sea levels and temperatures, increasing severity of storms and melting glacial ice demonstrate that the extrapolation of resources and excessive consumption of commodities has exhausted the environment’s limits and set the planet on a downward spiral. Lester R. Brown, author of Eco-Economy: Building an Economy for the Earth, proposes that a dramatic shift, similar to that brought about by Copernicus, is what is necessary to move toward coexistence between the environment and the economy (2001). Brown believes economists’ lens on the relationship is misguided and has strained the synchronization of the two. Contradictory to that of economists, Brown advocates for a paradigm shift in which the economy is seen “as a subset of the environment” (2001, 3). It should be adopted, Brown contends, for its explanatory functionality which can account for economic gains and environmental losses alike.
Economists and environmentalists need to work along mirrored frameworks which recognize and respect limits (Brown, 2001).
“…increasingly visible trends indicate that if the operation of the subsystem, the economy, is not compatible with the behavior of the larger system – the earth’s ecosystem – both will eventually suffer. The larger the economy becomes relative to the ecosystem, and the more it presses against the earth’s natural limits, the more destructive this incompatibility will be” (Brown, 2001, 4).
However, the work and responsibility is by no means exclusive to economists and environmentalists. To truly halt and make any reasonable attempt to reverse the damage already done demands societal commitment and investment in recognizing human abuse and neglect to the planet.
Brown points to increased governmental responsibility in the economy in the form of policies, but also in terms of education (2001). The government should draft, implement and enforce policy that is once again socially just and geared toward the well-being of all people and the environment. Furthermore, the government could implement tax shifting where taxes are lowered on income, but increased for goods and services to reflect the ecological truth or environmental cost in dollars and cents of the product. In addition, tax breaks can be offered for companies and consumers to buy into eco-friendly, durable products along with lowered rates of consumption that move away from convenience and planned obsolescence. Brown also suggests that the government be responsible for disseminating knowledge and resources about the environment and sustainable practices to the people, and points to the power of the media as a platform that should be utilized. Brown challenges the government to “foster the national vision of an eco-economy” and champion more sustainable measures of production and consumption, yet a societal shift also relies on individual buy-in (2001, 257).
People need to awaken as a consumer and a society to realize that although the odds are unfavorable, there needs to be collective responsibility for the environment and the well-being of the planet. Individual action can be as simple as buying less and throwing away less or becoming educated about proper receptacles for discarding waste. Ultimately, people need to stop buying into the system of capitalism and instead dedicate time and energy to more mindful consumption and toward becoming more conscientious as shoppers, consumers and as a society.
References
Allan, K. (2011). A primer in social and sociological theory: Toward a sociology of citizenship. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Benson, S. P. (1986). Counter cultures: Saleswomen, managers and customers in American department stores 1890-1940. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Berger, A. A. (2011). Ads, fads and consumer culture: Advertising’s impact on American character and society (4th ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Brown, L. R. (2001). Eco-economy: Building an economy for the earth. New York: NY: W.W. Norton & Company Inc.
Corrigan, P. (1997). The sociology of consumption: An introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Crane, D. (2000). Fashion and its social agendas: Class, gender and identity in clothing. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Davis, F. (1994). Fashion, culture and identity. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Dunlap, R. (2010). What would Veblen wear? Leisure Sciences, 32, 295-297.
Eisenberg, L. (2009). Shoptimism: Why the American consumer will keep on buying no matter what. New York, NY: Free Press.
Foster, J. B. 2005. The treadmill of accumulation: Schnaiberg’s environment and Marxian political economy. Organization & Environment 18(1): 7-18.
Gould, K. A., Pellow, D. N. and Schnaiberg, A. (2008). The treadmill of production: Injustice and unsustainability in the global economy. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.
Greenwood, D.T. and Holt, R. P. F. (2010). Growth, inequality and negative trickle down. Journal of Economic Issues, 44, 403-410.
Guiltinan, J. (2009). Creative destruction and destructive creations: Environmental ethics and planned obsolescence. Journal of Business Ethics, 89, 19-28.
Leiss, W., Kline, S., Jhally, S. and Botterill, J. (2005). Social communication in advertising: Consumption in the mediated marketplace (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
Lury, C. (2011). Consumer culture (2nd ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Marx, K. (1967). Capital: A critique of political economy, volume 1. New York, NY: International Publishers.
Perez, F. and Esposito, L. (2010). The global addiction and human rights: Insatiable consumerism, neoliberalism and harm reduction. Perspectives on Global Development and Technology, 9, 84-100.
Sarkar, S. (1999). Eco-socialism or eco-capitalism? A critical analysis of humanity’s fundamental choices. New York, NY: Zed Books.
Sassatelli, R. (2007). Consumer culture: History, theory and politics. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Schnaiberg, A. and Gould, K. A. (1994). Environment and society: The enduring conflict. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
Turow, J. and McAllister, M. P. (2009). The advertising and consumer culture reader. New York, NY: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
Veblen, T. (1934). The theory of the leisure class: An economic study of institutions. New York, NY: Random House.
Zukin, S. (2004). Point of purchase: How shopping changed American culture. New York, NY: Routledge.
Zukin, S. and Smith Maguire, J. (2004). Consumers and consumption. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 173-197.