3 Subjects of distribute Consumptionor Passive Dupes or Active Agents? post, copy, ho exactly is purchasingnot all of the commodities produced in mass con- Wsumer society—and, more important, why? Social theorists have been debating the various motivations for why we consume since the inception of mass consumer society.Do Some claim that consumers are passive dupes, manipulated by advertisers- and marketers into buying whatever they are selling, while others believe that consumers are active agents, creatively using commodities to express their tastes and lifestyles. Some theorists argue that commodities are used to control individuals, while others suggest that consumersProof manipulate commodities to express their class, status, and lifestyle. A few theorists even assert that consumers can use commodities to resist and even rebel against mass consumer society. Others debate whether consumers are rational, sovereign decision makers when they select and Draftpurchase consumer goods or if they act irrationally, pursuing pleasure as they attempt to fulfill their daydreams and fantasies. Are consumers victims or rebels, rational utilizers or hedonistic pleasure seekers (Gabriel and Lang 2006)? This chapter will explore the various types of consumers that can be found in mass consumer society. 41 Copyright ©2017 by SAGE Publications, Inc. This work may not be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means without express written permission of the publisher. 42 PART I CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Emulation, Distinction, or Rebellion? Veblen: Conspicuous Consumption and Leisure American social economist Thorstein Veblen, writing at the turn of the twentieth century, established the framework for a critique of mass con- sumer society. In his book The Theory of the Leisure Class (1899), he argued that conspicuous consumption, or the lavish display of wealth, was the motivating force of consumer behavior for the leisure or upper class. He quite abhorred this behavior, describing it as wasteful and an “unpro- ductive consumption of goods,” because it did “not serve human life or human well-being on the whole” (1899/1994:69, 97). While Veblendistribute was most critical of the leisure class for establishing conspicuous consumption as a way to demonstrate their class and status, he statedor that “no class of society, not even the most abjectly poor, foregoes all customary con- spicuous consumption” (1899/1994:85). However, the classes below the leisure class were motivated by emulation. Veblen suggested that the lei- sure class created standards of tastes and fashionpost, trends, which the lower classes would then copy. Once this happened, the leisure class would have to invent new trends to differentiate themselves from the classes below them—what Veblen referred to as making invidious distinctions based on their social standing. In thecopy, words of Georg Simmel, Just as soon as the lower classes begin to copy their style, thereby crossing the line of demarcation thenot upper classes have drawn and destroying the uniformity of their coherence, the upper classes turn away from this style and adopt a new one,Do which in its turn differentiates them from the masses; and thus the game- goes merrily on. (1904/1957:136) This process has been referred to as trickle-down theory and, according to Veblen, each class emulated or copied the class right above it in the class hierarchy;Proof thus, the upper middle class emulated the leisure class, while the middle class emulated the upper-middle class and so forth (Ritzer, Murphy, and Wiedenhoft 2001). Veblen also frowned upon what he called conspicuous leisure, or the Draft“non-productive consumption of time,” and believed that the “instinct” to work rather than to consume was what needed to be more fully devel- oped for the common good of society (1899/1994:43, 33). Conspicuous leisure allowed the upper class to develop refined manners, etiquette, and tastes, which differentiated it from other classes, who had to work Copyright ©2017 by SAGE Publications, Inc. This work may not be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means without express written permission of the publisher. Chapter 3 Subjects of Consumption 43 to survive and did not have the time to cultivate an appreciation for the opera or fine art or travel to Europe to experience other cultures. Know- ing how to dress in the most current fashion or what fork to use during a specific course at dinner were signs that one was a member of the leisure class. Veblen argued that over time, due to the changes in “the means of communication and the mobility of the population,” conspicu- ous consumption would come to trump conspicuous leisure because an individual would become exposed “to the observation of many persons who have no other means of judging his reputability than the display of goods” (1899/1994:86). Veblen’s theory of conspicuous consumption continues to be relevant today—many of us use commodities to display our socioeconomicdistribute class position. However, today conspicuous consumption revolves around displaying brand logos and upscale spending. Accordingor to sociologist Juliet Schor (1998:47), “A whole group of consumer goods that were once neutral symbolically are now highly recognizable,” such as athletic shoes, T-shirts, and even bottled water. These brandedpost, or logoed everyday com- modities are conspicuously consumed alongside luxury, designer brands. Indeed, the whole idea of a designer logo points to “the importance of visibility” in mass consumer society (Schor 1998:46). Furthermore, peo- ple are willing to spend more on items that they can visibly display. For example, in one study, women werecopy, found to spend more on expensive lipstick, which they could apply in public, than on facial cleanser, eye shadow, or mascara that arenot usually used in private (Schor 1998:50). Another significant change regarding how we conspicuously consume involves who we areDo trying to emulate. “Today a person is more likely to be making comparisons- with, or choose as a ‘reference group,’ peo- ple whose incomes are three, four, or five times his or her own” (Schor 1998:4). Instead of trying to emulate the class directly above us in the class hierarchy or “keeping up with the Joneses” next door, we are now participatingProof in upscale spending and trying to copy the consumption patterns of the rich and famous, particularly celebrities. “Keeping up with the Kardashians” by watching their television show or following their Twitter feeds makes their celebrity lifestyle feel accessible to the average Draftfan. The problem with upscale spending is that keeping up with the rich and famous is becoming more and more difficult as income and wealth inequality increases in the United States. To participate in upscale spend- ing, more Americans are falling into credit card debt and working longer hours, leaving them unhappy and unsatisfied (Schor 1998:14, 19). Copyright ©2017 by SAGE Publications, Inc. This work may not be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means without express written permission of the publisher. 44 PART I CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Bourdieu: Taste, Habitus, and Cultural Capital Although Veblen argued that conspicuous consumption would become more popular than conspicuous leisure as a means to display one’s wealth, leisure has not completely disappeared as a device that distinguishes the elite from the masses. Given that U.S. workers fail to take around 429 million paid vacation days per year, those who do take time off of work continue to distinguish themselves as members of the elite (Fisher 2015). On one hand, consumers can display their wealth by taking lengthy vacations to expensive destinations, demonstrating that they have enough money to either take time off of work or do not have to work at all. On the other hand, “cultivation of the aesthetic faculty” still “requiresdistribute time and application” (Veblen 1899/1994:74). A certain amount of “leisure” is necessary to learn manners and etiquette, as well as developor an apprecia- tion for classical music, expressionist art, and caviar. French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu investigated the relationship between class and taste in his work Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste (1984) and found that althoughpost, economic capital is strongly correlated with taste, it does not determine it. Cultural capital also plays a role. Cultural capital is “widely shared, high status cultural sig- nals (attitudes, preferences, formal knowledge, behaviors, goods and credentials used for social and cultural exclusion)”copy, and is “used by dominant groups to mark cultural distance and proximity, monopolize privilege, and exclude and recruit new occupants ofnot high status positions” (Lamont and Lareau 1988:156, 158). Cultural capital is shaped by what Bourdieu calls habitus, our mental dispositionsDo or “schemes of perception” (1984:2), that we acquire through socialization,- most generally through the institutions of the family and education. The elite attend the same schools, live in the same neighborhoods, and often marry each other, acting as gatekeepers as to who will be allowed access. While it is possible for a person not born into theProof elite to gain access to their privileged world, it can be difficult for this person to fit in if he or she does not possess enough cultural capital. For example, in the popular movie Pretty Woman (1990), the prostitute character played by Julia Roberts tries to buy new clothes on Rodeo DraftDrive and is laughed out of the store because she is dressed indecently. Even though she has enough money to purchase these new, expensive clothes, she does not look like she belongs in the store. Thus, a person cannot buy his or her way into the elite—economic capital is not enough to confer membership. Throughout the movie, her character is continually Copyright ©2017 by SAGE Publications, Inc. This work may not be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means without express written permission of the publisher.