In today’s consumerist culture, having the most things equates to social and cultural success – many people measure their self-worth and happiness by what they have instead of who they are (Cowen, 2009). At first, we seek to own things as a result of necessity – we primarily seek the things that we require in order to survive and thrive. Once those basic needs are met, however, we look toward amenities, and our major criteria for what we want to get is what the others around us have. When someone has something very expensive, and is clearly enjoying it, it is a motivation to have that same thing in order to relate or compete with the other. It is the very essence of “keeping up with the Joneses.” The phenomenon of consumerism as an outlet for leisure, particularly as it pertains to how it affects the family and community, deals mainly with the conflation of things with power and free time with wealth, while still conferring dangerous and misogynistic gender and family roles onto those who partake in it.
In the face of pecuniary emulation, it is clear that power can be equated with money, and this power can manifest itself in many ways (Bowles and Park, 2005). Control is most certainly one of them – the ability to hold sway over other human beings and groups. Ownership is a very strong indicator of a leisure class. At first, ownership was defined by men owning women, females being a very strong, prevalent commodity in the community. “the earliest form of ownership is an ownership of the women by the able bodies men of the community” (Veblen, 134).
Before this arose, members of the community would often share items, no one holding exclusive ownership to them. They were formerly useful as trophies and as a means to unite various clans, back when humanity behaved in an uncivilized manner (Lye and Waldron, 1997). People lived predatorily and competitively even then, though this behavior was far more overt and violent. Barbaric men of the past used to kill each other for dominance and ownership of their possessions, including women. “The two institutions are not distinguishable in the initial phase of their development; both arise from the desire of the successful men to put their prowess in evidence by exhibiting some durable result of their exploits” (Veblen, 134). As a result, these men would consider women as said result, with their physical beauty and their symbol as a mate for the man evidence that he will carry on his seed. This was the ultimate test of power, and as such became an incredible bit of evidence towards a man’s dominance; it also led to pecuniary emulation of others, as they also wished to carry on their seed.
Property in goods through monetary wealth is the most prominent evidence of a leisure class; the more things people have, the greater implication that they have the time to enjoy these things (Brannen, 2005). It also indicates monetary wealth, as these individuals possess the monetary funds to purchase these goods. However, this possession does not exist in a vacuum; for the most part, men still have to compete for these goods, and the ability to buy these goods. However, compared to primitive times, when men had to scrape by just to survive, one’s basic needs are already met in a modern society; therefore, the struggle then becomes who can have “the most toys” – the greatest level of amenity and leisure.
When people seek to own something or have more money, they are trying to emulate someone else; they have seen a more successful person possess this thing, and wish to have it too (Barksdale and Darden, p. 28). Alternatively, they are acting on information from advertising of a product, and so they would like to include it in their lives. Either way, they have seen something in action that would improve the ease of their lives, or their social status, and feel the need to acquire it at any means. “The possession of wealth confers honour,” and as a result, the more things that someone has, the more honorable they will be (Veblen, 135). This, then, equates to power; the more things people have, the greater honor is bestowed upon them, and this extends to the amount of influence they have over others.
This power via possession and wealth can manifest itself in many ways. For one, someone can possess a good or an item that others need or want; the permission to use or witness such a possession can be granted by its owner. With this incentive in mind, others are willing to do things or give things to the owner in exchange for this good or service. This semblance of power is familiar to those who possess items of envy (new cars, new technology) (Cahill, 2001). Power can also come with the ability to shape minds and sensibilities; as someone with wealth, and the ability to spend it however they please, the things they choose to acquire and use can become status symbols of power. As a result, those undergoing pecuniary emulation will also buy the same items and do the same things, in the hopes of becoming more like those they wish to emulate (i.e. the wealthy). When the wealthy considers this, they realize they have the power to determine people’s tastes and wants (Perez and Esposito, 2010).
In the past, “property set out with being booty held as trophies of the successful raid”; this implies that the items used to belong to someone else, and now are theirs (Veblen). This is a natural extension of the primitive act of stealing someone’s woman, or earning them through some act of power transference (killing or defaming someone who is in power, in order to take their place) (Sparks and Shepherd, p. 388). What’s more, the successful stealing of the booty indicates a transference of power from the owner to the thief, as the owner could not successfully protect that item or booty from being taken from him (Cowen, 2009). This extends to today, from “finder’s keepers” to the purchasing of companies by other companies.
It is important to keep in mind that ‘leisure’ does not equate to laziness, or doing nothing. Things are still being done with this time, but instead of performing needed tasks that are labor intensive and survival-based, they are taken up with status-related consumerism. These actions are not necessary, but they prove that idleness is something they can afford to do. The purchasing of a flatscreen TV or getting a facial is an example of conspicuous leisure; it is a sign of wealth and status.
Another property of conspicuous leisure is one that is, in some ways, misogynistic; a man can be considered to be very high status if his wife does not have to work (Lye and Waldron, 1997). A trophy wife, for example, is a perfect example of this – she merely exists as a status symbol for the man, as she is allowed to fill up her time with hobbies and the pursuit of her own vanity, personified through expressions of beauty and purchases of expensive clothing.
The primary reason people and families in communities have to accumulate wealth is the power which it confers. People engage in activities with a purpose for this reason – to gain things, and by extension power through those things. Whether they are needed or wanted, others will desire to have what others have, making individual ownership a game which everyone plays in an industrialized society. When you accomplish your purposes, you come away from it with things in your possession; when others see this accomplishment, they hold greater respect to you, and therefore are granted power over them. You are favorably compared to others, and therefore your opinion holds greater sway over them (Sparks and Shepherd, 1992). Those who do not have as much are met with the perception of shortcomings, as they were not “strong” or “powerful” enough to have what you have.
Works Cited
Barksdale, H.C., and Darden, W.R. (1972). Consumer attitudes toward marketing and
consumerism. Journal of Marketing 36(4): 28-35.
Bowles, S., and Park, Y. (2005). Emulation, inequality, and work hours: was Thorsten Veblen
right? The Economic Journal 115(507): 397-412.
Brannen, J. (2005). Time and the negotiation of work-family boundaries: autonomy or illusion?
Time & Society 14(1): 113-131.
Cahill, M. (2001). The Implications of Consumerism for the Transition to a Sustainable
Society. Social Policy & Administration 35(5): 627.
Cowen, T. (2009). The Life Cycle of Conspicuous Consumption. Money 38(4): 22.
Holzer, B. (2006). Political consumerism between individual choice and collective action:
social movements, role mobilization and signalling. International Journal of Consumer Studies 30(5): 405-415.
Lye, D.N., and Waldron, I. (1997). Attitudes toward cohabitation, family, and gender roles:
relationships to values and political ideology. Sociological Perspectives 40(2): 199-225.
Mortensen, P. (1995). Francis Hutcheson and the problem of conspicuous consumption. Journal
of Aesthetics & Art Criticism 53(2): 155.
Pérez, F., and Esposito, L (2010). The Global Addiction and Human Rights: Insatiable
Consumerism, Neoliberalism, and Harm Reduction. Perspectives on Global Development & Technology 9(1/2): 84-100.
Sparks, P., and Shepherd, R. (1992). Self-identity and the theory of planned behavior: assessing
the role of identification with 'green consumerism'. Social Psychology Quarterly 55(4):
388-399.
Stein, J. (2007). Conspicuous Consumption. Time 170(20): 118.
Veblen, Thorstein, Samuels W.J. and Tool, M.R. (2000). The theory of leisure class: an
economic study in the evolution of institutions. Faksimile-Ausg. ed. Düsseldorf: Verlag Wirtschaft und Finanzen.
