Embedded Files
Volume 2 | Issue 2 - Revolutions
Article by Katie Whitford. Edited by Zara Barua. Additional Research by Ellie Veryard.
The European consumer revolution in the eighteenth century was a turning point in history which made possible the world we know today. However you define consumption, whether shopping or purchasing or more vaguely ‘using’, it is impossible for us to avoid on a daily basis. In fact it is impossible to imagine modern life without it. Consumption is indispensable in our society. There are now a million ways to consume, from department stores to street markets to eBay. There are billions of different things to consume, but we could survive without 99% of them. How has this happened? Why do we buy the things we buy?
Theories that explain why we consume as we do are hotly debated. One of the most significant theories has been that of the Norwegian-American anthropologist, sociologist and economist Thorstein Veblen on ‘conspicuous consumption and social emulation’, set out in his ‘The Theory of the Leisure Class’ (1899). Now over a hundred years old, widely used and widely criticised, is it still useful in understanding the consumer revolution and modern consumption?
This article refers to the change in habits of consumption during the early modern period in Europe. I will use the term ‘consumer revolution’ for ease of reference, but as with the industrialisation in eighteenth century Britain, the phenomenon can be seen – depending on your standpoint – as a dramatic, fast-paced ‘revolution’ or a slower, long term, non-linear process.
The consumer revolution happened in Europe, particularly Britain and France, in the eighteenth century. It has arguably happened in lots of other places since then too, but this is seen as the first time. The term essentially describes a period when people started buying things they had never bought before. A much wider section of society was buying the non-necessities. Lower classes started buying in the same way as the elite classes. The change is related to concepts like the rise of fashion, mass production and mass consumption, and changing ideas of politeness and etiquette. It is easier to explain the scientific and economic reasons for the revolution – the things which can be quantified. The growing population, the increased buying power of the middle classes, industrialisation and technological innovations are examples of these quantifiable changes. These things can explain how people were able to buy more things and different things than they had before, but they can’t explain why people wanted to.
Veblen’s theory was that people want to buy things because they want to signal wealth, power and taste to others – in other words, signals about social status. He called this ‘conspicuous consumption’. The things which are bought might have a function, but they are more than that function. A whittled stick might serve as a piece of cutlery just as well as a silver dessert spoon, but the silver spoon makes a very different statement about social status than the stick. Consumption can only really be conspicuous if the product will be seen by other people. However, this covers pretty much everything, especially when you consider buying as a sociable act. The shopkeeper is judging your choice of product, as are the other people in the shop and the friends you talk to afterwards.
The term ‘social emulation’ describes the idea that whenever people buy something conspicuously, they do it to emulate their social superiors. People would not want to buy something which gave signals of a lower social status; they always want to aim higher. The idea is that you consume like the upper classes in order to be the upper classes, consciously or not. Veblen wrote his theory primarily to describe the consumption of the ‘leisure classes’ in the late eighteenth century, but he used anthropology to argue that social order is a fundamental part of all societies, and so social emulation is in human nature.
This theory still makes some sense if applied to context of early modern Europe. This was a period in which social hierarchy threatened to disintegrate: the slow march towards capitalism made the strict feudal order where land equals power and everyone has a place obsolete. The anonymity of urban life made it much more necessary to display social status, because neighbours in a city don’t necessarily know who your grandfather was and what your parents do for a living as they probably would in a village. All of this means that material goods became more important in both reinforcing and displaying social status, and at the same time society became bit by bit more fluid, making moving up the ladder something to aim for. It seems a contradiction that consumption was used to define different classes as well as a means of subverting them, but Veblen’s theory fits these pieces together.
Applied to modern consumption, on some levels conspicuous consumption and social emulation does still stand. This is helped by the vagueness of the theory: it can be stretched to apply to almost any example of consumption. I agree with the idea that people buy things as a display to others. I think it is also true that people buy things to identify with a particular idea of class or culture. However, I don’t know that this is the driving force behind consumption today.
As much as social order might be intrinsic to all societies, the idea of a class hierarchy has changed dramatically since Veblen’s time. There are rich and poor. But there are also countless different fashions, sub-cultures and ideals which it would be ridiculous to try to order into a kind of hierarchy. ‘Social emulation’ could be twisted to say that people today do not want to emulate their ‘superiors’ but rather an idea they have of some other kind of social group. That moves us away quite significantly from the original theory though, and raises the question: where is the line between emulation and buying something which represents what or who you actually are? Does the definitive chav or goth actually exist or are they just ideas for people to emulate?
It is difficult to use Veblen’s theory to account for the variety of different products, the high turnover of products, invention, innovation and novel products which marks modern consumption. The theory does not explain the fast changes in fashion whilst symbols of social status change much more slowly. Methods of consumption have also changed since Veblen’s time. How does the theory fit in with the modern phenomenon of internet shopping, which is practically anonymous? And what about the motives of people who want to buy products that are eco-friendly or fair trade or produced locally? However it is applied, but especially in the case of modern consumption, Veblen’s theory raises questions. Consumption is such a huge and varied concept that any theory which attempts to link buying a holiday with buying a house with buying milk at Tesco’s and every other act of consumption imaginable is a brave theory. I think Veblen’s ideas appeal most to people who see consumption in general as something pointless, wasteful and selfish, but it has definitely given me something to consider when I go shopping.
*****
Economist Robert Lekachman believed Veblen’s theories posed a great threat to social stability than Marx’s ideas and thus Veblen wrote in a satirical guise to disguise some of his more revolutionary elements.
Criticisms of the Theory of the Leisure Class normally focus on its lack of definition, with some critics claiming the theory now outdated, despite being valid for its time.
Only recently has Veblen’s work been employed by modern economists, most notably with the rise of Butterfly Economics, although his work has been a staple among sociologists for some time.
Report abuse