Sorry I haven't updated this blog over the last month, but with exams approaching and placements to apply for I've been a little snowed under. This post will be very different and if you don't like Sociology then you probably won't like what follows. In an attempt to revise for an exam that I have at the end of the week, I am going to write an essay right here, on this page, in order to test my knowledge of consumption as understood by key theorists. Thanks for reading and I'll be writing a more conventional post on here soon (I think!)
Firstly, Marx saw consumption as a symptom of Capitalism that was often derived from the misery of those whose labour produced the product, or what he called Exploitation. This exploitation was allowed to go unpunished by the bourgeoisie who used marketing and subversive tactics in order to inject a type of magic into products that the consumer would identify with (as opposed to the workers,) a process he called Commodity Fetishism. This ultimately achieved the goal of the bourgeoisie, to Alienate the consumer from their fellow man and the problems others experience as well as Alienating the workers from their own work, so that, in essence, the workers' labour would be absorbed by the entity for whom they worked, in attempts to position the corporation (as one of Capitalism's flagship economic entities) as the superior party. This is ultimately related to Marx's binary class structure, based around conflict which -he believed- to the
the story of human history, citing the revolutions of the past (e.g. French) as the endgame of the narrative in order to establish a new economic paradigm.
Emile Dirkheim (a Functionalist) on the other hand, found fault with Marx's interpretations of people's position in society, saying that people seek
greater control and social integration via Social Solidarity, not less as was Marx's view. Functionalism states that society is akin to an anatomical structure, with every aspect (even crime) as a necessary part of the society. These functions will naturally demand different people and different jobs, which is where the different functions come into play e.g. Eduction, Politics. Most importantly, is that these functions are seldom affected in isolation and rather the effects of one function will affect many others e.g. Politics and Eduction in policy relations. Functionalism also states that we naturally converge into a Value Consensus, where our values (drivers towards our goals) are prevalent across all groups. This can differ however between sub-cultures, which Dirkheim recognised, and as a result, these renegade group (sundered from society) are cited by Drikheim as an example of Egoism. This is similar to but wildly different from Anomie, which is where society's Norms (social behaviour codes) break down (which is seen quite often in riots.) Both Marx and Dirkheim saw Capitalism as a part of the problem, only Dirkheim saw Anomie as something to be suppressed rather than eradicated as Marx saw Alienation.
Moving on to Max Weber, he saw society as being defined by individuals, as opposed to the previous two who said that society defined the individual. Weber's theory revolves around Rationalisation, a critique of the encroachment of science and technology to the point where everything is calculable. This -he believed- lead to a decline in religious influence, which he believed to be an ethics resource, and as a result, the world began to lose wonder and spectacle; a process he called Disenchantment. This concept of Rationalisation is applied to what was called the Iron Cage of Bureaucracy, where the human dimension of anything is ultimately removed as red tape stifles life as people know it. He believed materialism was dangerously replacing much of what was previously held sacred, but disagreed on class with Marx, which he saw a multi-faceted, as did Dirkheim.
Weber's ideas influenced two contemporary theories, applying his ideas to the modern corporation because given the time in which Weber was writing, much of the industries he criticised were state-owned e.g. the police. The first of these theories is McDonaldisation from Ritzer. This theory states that -with increasing globalisation- the harmful business practices of McDonalds restaurants such as acute calculability, Taylorisitc management styles, control of the process and standardisation/predicability of services, were becoming increasingly prevalent across the world in different industries. This similarly was seen as a disenchanter as people continue to predict and calculate everything e.g. weight loss, BMI etc. or see the same, standardised television schedule (which can be influenced by powerful media companies e.g. Sky affecting football kick-off times.)
This, in turn, influenced a similar theory named Disneyisation (NOT to be confused with 'Disneyfication') where the principals of Disney theme parks become dominant. Disneyisation is characterised by spectacle and Re-enchantment of the world, where everything is constantly high-key, which is contrary to reality of course. The key principles are Theming (e.g. Nando's; Chiquito's etc.,) Hybrid-Consumption (e.g. shopping centres,) Performative Labour (such as children's entertainers,) Licensing (toy companies etc.) and Merchandising (sport teams for example.) These holistic consumption activities are almost manufactured and standardised too, which is where the former and latter theories overlap. Control is also present, however the key point to remember about the two is that while McDonaldisation focuses on the
process, Disneyisation is focused primarily on the
experience. In essence one could argue that the former is cancelled out by the latter, with the two extremes prevalent depending on the industry type e.g. production or services.
Moving on, we now come to Pierre Bourdieu. He believed that class systems were still prevalent in society, but argued against the binary split of Marx. Instead, he believed that society was determined by those of a specific
culture and upbringing, which is why (he argued) that there were far less working class children in higher education, because the language the classes used when amongst their own was
restricted by those of a working class background and not within the higher classes. This of course was criticised as being too broad to generalise from but nevertheless, Bourdieu's three capital types are used to this day e.g. within the recent BBC class calculator. Middle class people he believed had a distinct advantage when it came to education, that their parents' Social Capital allowed for confidence-building and networking with important people and Cultural Capital relates to the previous point in their traditional and more high-brow Taste (aesthetic judgement,) which was also a part of the educational culture. However, classes were not powerful in all areas he conceded, because someone who is knowledgable on literature for example, may have no knowledge (and therefore no Cultural Capital) on other subjects e.g. Science. This relates to the flagship idea of his theory, the concept of Social Fields. A social field is just a facet of society at large and could potentially be anything, any activity, any subject. This, he argued, is why we consume, because we are involved with different social fields and exhibit our own Taste in things as a result of our three capital types. However, he also argued the existence of sub-cultures or a Habitus, each possessing a certain mind-set or Doxa in which consumption may differ from most of society. Gangs are a common example of this, which is also where a phenomenon known as Symbolic Violence often arose, that is the belligerent display of a symbol to demonstrate power over others. This myriad consumption activities is a very broad theory that manages to remain fairly neutral vis-a-vis Capitalism.
Consumption is seen as liberating by some however, and these are the Post-Modernists. These people believe that consumption is what humans seek to participate in because it expresses individuality. The age of Modernism was characterised by everything being functional and large but generally was aesthetically unappealing e.g. modern towns such as Milton Keynes. PM was different in that things had to be functional, but also had to look the part, which is seen in most modern buildings featuring a range of hi-tech features such as eco technology and imposing skylines of clear glass or innovative architectural artistry, as seen in some hotels and modern offices e.g. Apple's Infinity Loop. A post-modern world also rejects many assumptions made by society, such as on gender. To a postmodernist gender is a spectrum and consumption activities/possibilities are endless. This is largely due to an erosion of space and time, with 24-hour news etc. that is constantly updated and is often intertextual, blending fiction and the real into what has been described as Hyper-reality. Naturally, the theory also rejects previous assumptions made about class systems and argues that in the age of the digital, classes are increasingly being fragmented and are becoming irrelevant. The two most important tenants of this theory are Spectacle/Symbolic Consumption and the Hyper-Reality/Intertextuality.
Thank you for reading this rather impromptu essay. I can't believe I actually remembered all of that without having to refresh my memory in the textbooks. In any case I hope you found it useful and if you've learnt something from it then great, I hope it serves you well in the future!
Thanks again
