many Americans worry about
our preoccupation with getting and spending. They fear we are
losing touch with more worthwhile values and ways of living. But
the discomfort rarely goes much further than that; it never coheres
into a persuasive, well-articulated critique of consumerism
The average American now finds it harder to achieve a satisfying
standard of living than 25 years ago. Work requires longer hours,
jobs are less secure, and pressures to spend more intense
the ways in which our sense of social standing
and belonging comes from what we consume. If true, they suggest
that attempts to achieve equality or adequacy of individual incomes
without changing consumption patterns will be self-defeating
Somebody needs to
be for quality of life, not just quantity of stuff. And to do
so requires an approach that does not trivialize consumption,
but accords it the respect and centrality it deserves
My term is "competitive consumption,"
the idea that spending is in large part driven by a comparative
or competitive process in which individuals try to keep up with
the norms of the social group with which they identify-a "reference
group."
The aspirational
gap has been created by structural changes-such as the decline
of community and social connection, the intensification of inequality,
the growing role of mass media, and heightened penalties for failing
in the labor market.
Consumption is perhaps
the clearest example of an individual behavior which our society
takes to be almost wholly personal, completely outside the purview
of social concern and policy. The consumer is king. And queen.
The economic model presents the
typical consumer as deliberative and highly forward-looking, not
subject to impulsive behavior. Shopping is seen as an information-gathering
exercise in which the buyer looks for the best possible deal for
product she has decided to purchase. Consumption choices represent
optimizing within an environment of deliberation, control, and
long-term planning.
From the famous beer taste test of the 1960s (brand
loyalists misidentified their beers), to cosmetics, garments,
and other tests of more recent vintage, it seems that we love
our brands, but we often can't tell which brands are which.
What is more generally true, I believe, is that many consumers
do not understand why they prefer one brand over another, or desire
particular products. This is because there is a significant dimension
of consumer desire which operates at the non-rational level. Consumers
believe their brand loyalties are driven by functional dimensions,
but a whole host of other motivators are at work-for example,
social meanings as constructed by advertisers; personal fantasies
projected onto goods; competitive pressures.
Bourdieu argues
that class status is gained, lost, and reproduced in part through
everyday acts of consumer behavior. Being dressed incorrectly
or displaying "vulgar" manners can cost a person a management
or professional job. Conversely, one can gain entry into social
circles, or build lucrative business contacts, by revealing appropriate
tastes, manners, and culture. Thus, consumption practices become
important in maintaining the basic structures of power and inequality
which characterize our world.
While the current
economic boom has allayed consumers' fears for the moment, many
Americans have long-term worries about their ability to meet basic
needs, ensure a decent standard of living for their children,
and keep up with an ever-escalating consumption norm.
One reason for this shift to "upscale
emulation" is the decline of the neighborhood as a focus
of comparison.
We use our income in four basic ways: private consumption,
public consumption, private savings, and leisure.
Use values become a reality only by use or consumption: they also constitute the substance of all wealth, whatever may be the social form of that wealth. In the form of society we are about to consider, they are, in addition, the material depositories of exchange value.
socially necessary
If then we leave out of consideration the use value of commodities, they have only one common property left, that of being products of labour.
The labour time socially necessary is that required to produce an article under the normal conditions of production, and with the average degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time.
We see then that that which determines the magnitude of the value of any article is the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labour time socially necessary for its production
This productiveness is determined by various circumstances, amongst others, by the average amount of skill of the workmen, the state of science, and the degree of its practical application, the social organisation of production, the extent and capabilities of the means of production, and by physical conditions.
A thing can be useful, and the product of human labour, without being a commodity. Whoever directly satisfies his wants with the produce of his own labour, creates, indeed, use values, but not commodities. In order to produce the latter, he must not only produce use values, but use values for others, social use values.
To become a commodity a product must be transferred to another, whom it will serve as a use value, by means of an exchange.
Lastly nothing can have value, without being an object of utility. If the thing is useless, so is the labour contained in it; the labour does not count as labour, and therefore creates no value.
A commodity is, in the first place, an object outside us, a thing that by its properties satisfies human wants of some sort or another.
A commodity, such as iron, corn, or a diamond, is therefore, so far as it is a material thing, a use value, something useful. This property of a commodity is independent of the amount of labour required to appropriate its useful qualities.
As use values, commodities are, above all, of different qualities, but as exchange values they are merely different quantities, and consequently do not contain an atom of use value.
There, the existence of the things quâ commodities, and the value relation between the products of labour which stamps them as commodities, have absolutely no connection with their physical properties and with the material relations arising therefrom. There it is a definite social relation between men, that assumes, in their eyes, the fantastic form of a relation between things.
Since the producers do not come into social contact with each other until they exchange their products, the specific social character of each producer’s labour does not show itself except in the act of exchange
To the latter, therefore, the relations connecting the labour of one individual with that of the rest appear, not as direct social relations between individuals at work, but as what they really are, material relations between persons and social relations between things.
Communities that have tool lending libraries, networks for borrowing and lending goods, and neighbors who share things can help us avoid our tendencies to accumulate stuff.
The most we can do to make sharing happen is create fertile ground for it, design communities where sharing can happen naturally and conveniently. I’ve heard people say time and again: It’s design. Design. Design. Design.
It also seems that many people are ready to question our long-held notion that each family needs is own kitchen, its own yard spaces, and its own utility and work spaces.