Consumer Culture in Historical Perspective

Convenience as an Ideal of Modern Living

Consumer  Culture  in  Historical  Perspective 385 freedom  from  attention,  care, and responsibility

 

Convenience  was promoted  as  a  potential  benefit  of  so  many  products  that  it  became  one of  the aims of modern  living, an attribute  of the modern  lifestyle and of the entire panoply of consumer goods that modern life required. It joined  cleanliness  among  the  selling  points  for  a  wide  variety  of products  that  transformed  Americans'  relationship  to  the  material world.  

 

In  a  few  decades,  the  ideal  of  the  durable  and  reusable  was displaced  by  aspirations  of  leisure  and  luxury.  A  level  of  ease  and cleanliness  that  had  once  been  attainable  only  with  many  servants  - if  at  all  - could  now  be  achieved  by  buying  things,  and  even  by throwing  things  away.  With  Kleenex,  you  could  always  have  a clean handkerchief  with  no  work.

"Convenience"  was  only  one  of  the  enticements  for  American  con- sumers  of  the  1920s. Technological  improvements  made  many  new products  work  better  than  their  predecessors.  Radios  provide  a his- torical  example  of  technological  obsolescence  that  seems  familiar  to those  of  us  who  have  by  now  owned  and  discarded  several  com- puters. In automobile sales, the technological  advances symbolized by the  Model  T Ford  were  giving  way  to  fashion style  changes  made independent  of  utility  -  symbolized  by  the  General Motors  cars  that eventually  forced  Ford,  too,  to  change  styles.

 

 Many  other  productsas  well  brought  fashion  into  their  sales  strategies during  the  period after  World  War  I,  More  and  more  things  were  made  and  sold with an  expectation  that  they  would  soon  be  worthless  or  obsolete.The  French  social  critic  Gilles  Lipovetsky  calls  contemporary consumer  culture  an  "empire  of  the  ephemeral."'"  He  argues  that its central  feature  is the extension  of  the principle  of  fashion lescence  on the  basis  of  style -  to material  goods  other  than  clothing and  to  a  broad  spectrum  of  people,  "a  society  restructured from top to bottom by the attractive and the ephemeral.

 

" Fashion's  "abbre viated time span and its systematic obsolescence have become characteristics  inherent  in  mass  production  and consumption,"  he writes, and  "consumers  spontaneously  hold  that  the new  is by  nature superior  to  the  old."  In  Lipovetsky's  view,  this  generalization  of  the ashion process defines  consumer society, which depends on the expansion  of  needs  and  "reorganizes  mass  production  and  consumpti according  to  the  law  of  obsolescence, seduction, and diversification.

 

The  expansion of  fashion into  new realms  was  part  of  a  more general  development  in  the history  of  marketing.  In  the decades  before
World  War I, American  manufacturers  came  to understand  that  markets were  not  shaped  by  pre-existing  supply  and  demand,  but could  be developed  and  extended.  In the pages  of  their  trade journals,  marketers spelled  out  the  principles  for  selling  more.

Technological Obsolescence and Fashion as Marketing Tools

 

 Repositioning  a  product could  increase  the  market;  thus  Carnation  canned  milk,  once  sold  to mining  expeditions,  moved  into the  home. Markets  could  be  expanded by  suggesting  more  uses  for  products:  Nearly  every  successful food company  gave  away  recipe  booklets  full  of  ideas  for  using  more of its product,  while  Procter  and  Gamble  advertised  that  Ivory  soap  could be  used  both  in  the  bath  and  the  laundry.  Year-round  demand was created  for  products  previously  considered  seasonal.  And manufacturers  found that  they  could  sell  more  of  products as  different as phonographs  and  canned  foods if  they  offered a  range  of  options different grades  at  different prices."

 

Encouraging  people  to replace  goods  before  the old  ones  were  used up  was  another  strategy  for  increasing  markets,  and  fashion  a means for  doing  so. A wide  range  of  consumer  goods  could  be  sold  according to the principles that French critic Roland Barthes describes as fundamental to  fashion.  "If  the  garment  is  replaced  as  soon  as  it  is worn  out,"  he  explains,  "there  is  no  Fashion;  . . . if  the  garment  is worn beyond  its  natural replacement  time,  there  is pauperization;if  a  person  buys  more  than  he  wears,  there  is  Fashion,  and  themore  the  rhythm  of  purchase  exceeds  the  rhythm  of  dilapidation,  the stronger  the  submission  to  Fashion".

 

Lipovetsky  adds  that  manufacturers  convince  consumers  to  buy  more of  what  they  already  have  by  offering more  options.  Products "are never  offered in  just  one  unique  form;  increasingly,  the  consumer  is invited  to  choose  between  one  variant  and  another,  between  one  set of  accessories,  or  gamuts,  or  programs,  and  another,  and  to  combinethe elements  of each  more  or  less  freely.  Like  haute couture,  mass  consumption  implies  the increasing  of  models, the diversification  of  series,the  production  of  optional  differences, the  stimulation  of  a  personalized  demand"  

By  the  1920s,  American  academic  analysts  of  household  life  noted that  modern  fashion  went  well  beyond  the  wardrobe.  In  his  1923 text Economics of the Household,  Benjamin  R. Andrews listed its characteristics:

1  The  immense  number  of  objects  to  which  it extends;
2 The uniformity  of fashion,  which knows no territorial  or class limit;
3  The  maddening  tempo  of  the  changes  of  fashion"

 

Economist  Hazel  Kyrk  attributed  the extension  of  fashion  to technological  change  - decreasing  production  costs  and  new  materials.Manufacturers  could  not  be  blamed  for  the  maddening  tempo  or  for their  desire  to  change  styles,  she  explained.  Some  innovated,  evaluating  the  potential  profits  and  risks  that  accrued  from  being  the  first to  introduce  new  fashions.  But  others  chose  not  to, fearful  of  failure or  because  postponing  change  allowed  them  to  dispose  of  stock  on hand  or  to  utilize  dies  or  patterns  to  their  fullest

The Expansion of Fashion and Marketing in the Early 20th Century

 

Historian  Roland Marchand  has shown that the process of extending fashion  to a wide variety  of objects  was well  under  way in the 1920s,especially with  respect  to  color,  which  could  be  varied without redesigning  products  or  retooling  factories.  Marchand  explains that color  offered  manufacturers  a  way  of  converting  staple  goods,  purchased  according  to  Barthes'  "rhythm  of  dilapidation,"  into fashion goods, purchased  on the basis of desire. Many products  that had once come in standard  black or white  were now available  in rainbow  hues Parker  offered a pen  with  a  red  barrel;  Willys-Overland  pioneered the  colored  automobile  during  the  eariy  1920s.  By  1927,  Marchand writes, "a writer in Printers" Ink had enthroned color as  'the sex appeal of  business'

 

Color  fashions  were  marketed  for  every  room  in  the  house,to people of all classes. The Montgomery Ward company -  which served a rural  and  working  class  market  with  its  mail  order  catalog  and  a few  urban  stores  -  advertised  bathroom  sinks,  tubs,  and  toilets that met  "the modern  demand  for  COLOR  in  Bathroom  Fixtures." So did the more expensive Crane company. To coordinate  with the plumbing or  for  those  who  wanted  to  spruce  up  their  bathrooms  but  couldn ot  afford  new  fixtures  - textile  manufacturers  introduced  colored towels,  previously  available  only  in  white.  

 

The  plain  vanilla,  so tospeak, of the  modern  bathroom  is turning pistachio  and  orange!" one of those manufacturers  rejoiced  in ihe Ladies' Home Journal in  1927,

 

"If  you  are  fond  of  color schemes  -  and  what  woman  is  not? -  try  having  the  bathroom  appear in towels  bordered  with blue  and  orange  one  week,  lavender  and  green the  next." The  ad  claimed  that  accommodating  to  seasonal  and  weekly rhythms  in  bathroom  fashion  "costs  no  more  money,"  but  of  course it  did.'

 

There  were  other  voices  besides  those  of  the  advertisers. Most women  could  never  afford  new  bathroom  fixtures,  and  many  continued to  equip  their  houses  with  hand-embroidered kitchen  towels made out  of  flour  sacks  rather  than  colored  bath  towels  from  the  department  store.  Academics  still  read  the  work  of  Thorstein  Veblen,  whose Theory of  the  Leisure Class (1899)  had  analyzed  and  satirized the rise  of  consumerism.  Engineers  promoted  standardization, insisting that  vast  resources  were  being  wasted  because  products  came  in  too many  styles  and  sizes.

 

The  American  Society  for  Thrift, established in  1914  and  active  well  into  the 1920s,  organized  school  lessons  on saving  (American  Society  for  Thrift, 1915; Chamberiain, 1928).  And in  Middletown, their  best-selling  study  of  Muncie,  Indiana,  the  sociologists  Robert  and  Helen  Merrell  Lynd  (1929)  observed  the  emerging consumer  culture  with  a  critical  eye.

But  savings  lessons  represented  an  old  ethic,  and  even  the  strongest advocates  of  standardization  and  thrift  had  to  make  those concepts palatable  to readers  steeped  in the  new  consumer  culture. Nearly  every discussion  of  standardization  included  an  obligatory explanation  that nobody  was  advocating  standardized  sofas  or  women's  hats.  In  1925,the  editor  of  the  Journal of  Home Economics even  redefined thrift to  mean  "wise  spending  of  money"  (Tucker, 1991,  p.  69).'^  Despite the  complaints  of  the  critics,  the  development  of  a  consumer  culture was  changing  the  relationships  of  the  market,  the  activities  of  the household,  and  the  meanings of  work.

 

And  they  have  continued  to  change.  In  the  United  States  between the  world  wars, some  clothes  were  made  at home; most  women bought coats,  for  example, but  many  made  and  mended  their  housedresses  and their  children's  clothes. Canned  food  was  widely available, but  restaurants were for traveling and special occasions; most meals were prepared  in  private  kitchens,  from  scratch.  Except  in the  South,  where

 

African  American  women tended small children of both races,  infants and  toddlers  were  generally  cared  for  by  family  members.Since World  War  II,  the  production  of  clothing  and  food  havebecome  more  public  affairs,  increasingly  fulfilled by  machines  anystems designed  by  corporations  for  their  own  profit.  Even  childcare  has  taken  on  market  overtones.  Religious  organizations  and political parties  employ  marketing  techniques  developed  for  toothpaste. The services of doctors and educators are construed as commodities.

 

Everyone  is  defined  as  a  consumer;  even  presidents are  not  exempt,  as  the  senior  George  Bush  learned  during  his  presidency  when he  was  ridiculed  for  never  having  seen  the  automatic checkout  scanners  common  in American  supermarkets.  Consumption is the reason people work, and equal opportunity to consume is entangled  with  concepts  of  citizenship.  American  consumption  is  shaped by persistent,  well-crafted  indoctrination,  created  in  the  interests increasingly  concentrated  economic,  political,  and  cultural  power.For more  than  a  century,  advertisers,  marketers,  and  the  developers of  retail  space  have  diverted  consumers  from  that  reality  by associating  buying  itself  with  leisure,  pleasure  and  fantasy.

 

But  we  do our  critique  a disservice  if  we  narrate  history  as  a tale of  conspiracy.  The  process  that  makes  people  into  consumers amalgamates  changing  ideas, habits,  technology,  demographic  trends, and many  other  facets  of  culture  that  even  the  most  powerful marketers cannot control. Corporate managers did not necessarily set out to create needs,  nor  did  they  do  so  in  any  straightforward  way. They  made products in order to sell them. Their goal, in Thorstein  Veblen's words,was the "quantity-production  of customers," the making  of consumer markets  (1923,  p.  305).

 

The  manipulative  power  of  even  the  largest and most expensive marketing efforts  was limited  by ethnic, regional,and  personal preferences.  If  marketing  could  turn  consumer  desire into  necessity,  so  much  the  better,  but  if  it  could  not,  manufacturers generated more new  products, and cultivated  consumer desire for  the next  thing.

In  the  United  States, the  historical  study  of  consumption  was  at  firsta contribution  to critical  discussions  of contemporary  political issues as well as historical ones. Critiques of consumer culture were grounded

in  the  multifaceted  social  and  political  movements  of  the  1960s and 1970s  and  the  broad  sense  of  "political"  that  prevailed  at  that time.Feminists plastered billboards with "this ad degrades women" stickers;they  debated  the  importance  of  consumerism  to  women's oppression and,  more  generally,  the  relationship  of  consumption  to  women'sunpaid  household  labor.  Hippies  promoted  dropping  out: working as little  and  spending  as  little  as  possible.  Leftists  sought  to  interpret Marx's  writings  on  commodity  fetishism  and  the analyses.

 

In  recent  years,  in  my  country,  these  political  viewpoints  have declined.  Beyond  the  academy,  an  apolitical  or  celebratory  stance towards  consumer  culture  has  been  fortified  by  the  fall  of  communism;  among  some intellectuals, cultural  studies  has dared  to suggest that  consumption  may  actually  have  liberatory  potential.  Yet  after all  these  years,  and  despite  substantial  changes  in women's lives,feminist  analyses  of  marketing  retain  their  vitality.

 

Regionalist  and aesthetic  cases  against  homogenized  culture  have  gone  on  the globalstage. Social  injustice  becomes ever more compelling, and not simply because  the  rich  have  more  stuff,  or  because  private  extravagance ties up  money  that  could  be  given  to charity  or taxed  for  publc  use.

In  contemporary  culture,  consumption  reproduces  inequality,  a  task accomplished  in traditional  cultures by birth  and caste.  Individualism
and  the  decline  of  social  values  and  social  space  foster  the  idea that satisfying  personal needs and desires takes precedence over the values of  tribe,  religion,  or  nature.

 

But  of  all  the  critiques  of  consumer  culture,  the  environmental one is, I believe, the least debatable; as global warming becomes more obvious  and  oil  wars  proliferate,  it  becomes  ever  more  potent.We are literally  consumers: Few of us sew clothes, build  houses, or make music. We don't know how to get clean water or how to make gasoline,and  the  systems  that  comprise  daily  life  are  too  complex  for  most of  us  to  comprehend  at  all,  and  for  any  of  us  to  comprehend  completely.  

 

Our  dissociation  from  our  bodies  and  the  planet  may  beregarded  as a function  of  widespread  self-indulgence  or  as  an understandable  response  to  the  pressures  of  modern  and  postmodern  life. But even  those who glorify  first-world  consumer  culture must  regard it  as  reasonable  for  people  elsewhere  to  want  an  equivalent  level  of convenience  and  comfort,  and  must  question whether  the  planet  can provide  sufficient  resources.

An  understanding  of  history  does  not  contribute  in  any  straight Consumer  Culture  in  Historical  Perspective forward  way  to environmental  solutions.  Indeed,  understanding  and embracing  the  concept  of  change  over  time  complicates  the  issues.

But,  like  foreign  travel,  the  historical  perspective  provides  us  with a viewpoint  from  which we may observe  some other  way to be human,and where we may ask heretical but important questions: Is everything a  commodity?

 

How  might  we  go  about  reassociating  ourselves  with our  bodies  and  the  planet?  What  are  the  costs  of  commercial  values framing all  facets  of  life?  What,  to  use  the  words  of  the  organizers of  this  conference,  do  the  economic  and  social  well-being  of  consumers and  families  mean  in light  of the pressing  issues of  the global environment,  the  global  labor  force,  and  human  rights?

 

Above all, the historical perspective tells us that things change. With it,  we  can  regard  artifacts  and  institutions  as  ephemeral.  Transitory phenomena,  they  come  and  go; McDonald's  is  no  more  eternal  than the  Sears  catalogue,  which  dominated  American  merchandising in its day.  Like  travel  in distant  lands, travel  in the  foreign  country  that is the past highlights both advantages and drawbacks ofcontemporary consumer  culture.  Keeping  it  in  mind  inevitably  enriches  our  awareness  of  market  behavior