Work and Consumerism

Sociology initially focused its attention on the changes to society that had been brought about by industrialization. A major aspect of modernity was the changing nature of people’s working lives: the dramatic shift from agriculture and crafts in rural communities to employment in the new manufacturing industries. Along with this came the growth of capitalism, bringing prosperity to at least some members of society

Among the first to study the implications of work in modern industrial society were Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, who saw the emergence of two social classes: an affluent bourgeoisie, or middle class, and an oppressed proletariat, or working class. But as well as the exploitation of the working class, the pair recognized that the repetitive and soulless nature of the work itself alienated the workers, while the division of labor removed any feeling of connection with the finished product or pride in their work. Later, Max Weber pointed out how rationalization and the work ethic combined to force people to work for a specific economic end rather than for the good of the community as a whole. Traditional communal values had been eroded, and replaced with an emphasis on material worth.

Consumer society

For the working class, this  translated into a struggle to earn the means to support a family, and resignation to a life of work that was unrewarding in every sense. For the growing capitalist middle class, it meant increased prosperity and leisure. The value that was ascribed to material wealth meant that a person’s social status was judged by economic worth.

Toward the end of the 19th century, sociologist Thorstein Veblen pointed out that the bourgeoisie could assert its social status, whether real or not, by conspicuous consumption—

spending not on goods and services that were necessary, but luxuries and leisure pursuits that would be noticed. Colin Campbell was later to liken the rise of a “consumer society” in the 20th century to the Romanticism that flourished in reaction to 18th-century rationalism and industrialization. Daniel Miller saw the growth of material consumerism as a potential source of social cohesion—a means of identifying with a social group.

Industrialization continued to spread across the world in the 20th century, and technological advances led to an increase in automation—in agricultural and traditional crafts as well as in manufacturing industries. Societies, in the industrialized West at least, became more materially prosperous, and fostered the rapid growth of mass consumerism, but sociologists disagreed about the effects of automation on the workforce.

Robert Blauner forecast that automation would free people from mindless tasks and reduce their feelings of alienation. On the other hand, Harry Braverman argued that automation meant workers were no longer required to develop professional skills, had less control over their working lives, and felt yet more alienated. Somewhere between these two views, however, Michael Burawoy suggested that workers reconcile themselves to ultimately dull and oppressive work by recognizing its positive aspects.

 

Post-industrial work 

In the 1970s, around 200 years after the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the nature of work looked set to change yet again. Daniel Bell predicted that mechanization would take people out of manufacturing industries, and they would be employed predominantly in the information and service industries. To a large extent, in the affluent world at least, this has proved correct. Another change that became apparent in the latter part of the 20th century is that work was no longer seen as a male preserve; more women than ever before are in paid employment.

One effect of the shift into what is now known as the post-industrial world has been identified by Arlie Hochschild. Service industries are more emotionally demanding than manufacturing; in effect, they commercialize emotion, to the extent, she argues, that people can associate their feelings with their work rather than their home lives and leisure. The social effects of these recent changes to the nature of employment have yet to be fully studied; it is too early to tell whether work in the service economy will prove to be any more rewarding, or conducive to social solidarity, than manufacturing work—or if gender inequality will be reduced because more women are in the workforce.

Conspicuous Consumption Of To The Gentleman Of Thorstein Veblen (1857-1929) Valuable Goods Leisure Is A Means Of Reputability.

The work of US economist and sociologist Thorstein Veblen focuses on the relationship between economy and society, and on how different class groups consume specific goods and services. He draws on the ideas of a number of key theorists, including Karl Marx, British sociologist Herbert Spencer, and British naturalist Charles Darwin. Veblen’s insights into capitalist society and the types of consumer behavior it gives rise to are outlined in his most celebrated work, The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of Institutions (1899).

Capitalism and class 

Veblen sees the transition from traditional to modern society as propelled by the development of technical knowledge and industrial production methods. Like Marx, Veblen argues that capitalist society is split into two competing social-class groups: the industrious class made up of workers; and the leisure class, also referred to as the pecuniary or business class (which also includes politicians, managers, lawyers, and so on), which owns the factories and workshops

The industrious class forms the vast majority of the population and engages in productive labor, such as manual craft and machine work. By contrast, the leisure class is a numerically far smaller, but nevertheless socially and economically privileged, group that is parasitic on the labor of the industrious class. For Veblen, members of this predatory leisure class do not produce anything of any real benefit to the wider good of society. The wealth and privilege they possess derive from driving competition and manipulating workers, with the sole aim of increasing their personal wealth. Worse still, the privileged class consistently impedes positive social advancement through its deliberate mismanagement of industry and society generally.

Social recognition 

Veblen’s concept of “conspicuous consumption” is his most renowned contribution to economic and sociological theory. Framed by the Darwinian notion that all life represents an ongoing struggle for resources in the pursuit of advancement of the species (or in the case of human societies, the groups to which individuals belong), Veblen argues that under capitalism the majority of human behavior is determined by struggles for social recognition, status, and power. This is most evident in relation to patterns of consumption and leisure.

Conspicuous consumption refers to spending money on, and consumption of, nonessential luxury goods in order to display to other members of society one’s own economic and material wealth. An example of this is the modern business tycoon who buys an expensive yacht so that he can entertain friends and clients. It is not the utility value of the yacht (whether or not it is an effective means of transport) that matters to the tycoon; rather, its value is as a highly conspicuous signifier of the wealth at the tycoon’s disposal, for which he will receive both admiration and respect.

Leisure and waste

Closely bound to Veblen’s concept of conspicuous consumption is the notion of conspicuous leisure : the vast amount of time that members of the leisure class spend in pursuit of activities that are neither economically nor socially productive. Very simply, leisure implies an absence of work. For members of this privileged class who have sufficient distance from economic necessity (the need to work), the nonproductive use of time can be used to further their social prestige and class position. Going on exotic foreign vacations and learning about other countries are classic examples of conspicuous leisure, according to Veblen.

The inevitable consequence of conspicuous leisure and consumption is the production of unnecessary waste. Conspicuous waste, argues Veblen, derives from the amalgamation of conspicuous consumption and conspicuous leisure. The net result of these two activities is that socially valuable resources (the raw materials and human labor essential for the production of consumer goods and services) and time are wasted. A glaring example of this culture of waste is the depletion of natural resources such as oil and minerals in the manufacture of luxury. goods and commodities, which in turn gives rise to increased carbon emissions and climate change.

Veblen’s concepts of conspicuous consumption and conspicuous leisure are “political” ones because they contain within them a strong moral stance toward the actions and lifestyle of what he sees as the predatory and parasitic leisure class.

The concept of “Veblen goods,” or luxury goods that signal high status, appeared in economic theory in the 1970s. In a reversal of usual trends, the higher the price of these items, the more they are desired.

The carbon-copy lifestyle of some middle-class neighborhoods arises from pressure to emulate the consumption practices of residents in an attempt to gain status and prestige.