Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Sociologists studying consumer culture have asked (1) how collective ideas influence the consumption patterns of groups, (2) how social ties shape the consumption patterns of individuals and small groups, (3) how ritual-like interactions bolster consumption habits, (4) how the solidarity (consciousness of kind) of groups is maintained through consumption, (5) how consumers are manipulated through marketing and the spatial layout of stores, and (6) how consumer culture corrupts cultural and economic lives (or not). These questions conform to the paradigm of sociology as an interpretive social science concerned with intergroup relations and meaningful encounters.

How Collective Ideas Shape Consumption

Max Weber's Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism reminds social scientists that economic ideas influence consumption and savings practices. To commit oneself to working hard affirmed one's sense of “calling” to one's vocation and of doing one's work as if unto God. At the same time, the religious notion of asceticism required that excess earnings be saved rather than spent for superfluous objects or for ostentatious display. These collective ideas were shared across society and profoundly shaped the consumption and savings practices enabling the ethos of the capitalist economy to thrive.

Indeed, the “spirit of calculation” (Bourdieu 2000, 25) is not universal but a historically contingent understanding collectively shared in a society. Economic behaviors that most people take for granted (money, credit, saving, spending, wage work, etc.) are embodied beliefs and economic dispositions that influence what and how people understand goods to be goods and what people do with their money and their goods. In Pierre Bourdieu's investigation of Algerian workers after their country had been liberated from French colonization, he excavated the “folk economics” of a cook to demonstrate that the economic ethos of modern capitalism differs from the ethos of the earlier period and that such dispositions as economic rationality and allocation efficiency (that minimizes costs and maximizes profits) were historically constituted.

These collective ideas also restricted what should be sold by whom and to whom. At the end of the colonial period, for example, an honorable person could not sell milk, exchanges among neighbors and kin followed a gift/counter-gift logic, and the type of relationship people were in dictated what would be regarded as the appropriate medium (or media) of exchange:

For example, the charka of an ox (in which a peasant lends an ox for a predefined period in exchange for a certain number of measures of grain [a medium of exchange] can only be set up between quasi-strangers… and is enshrouded in all kinds of dissimulations and euphemizations intended to mask or repress its mercantile potentialities. In most cases, the two “contracting parties” prefer to agree to conceal the arrangement, with the borrower trying to disguise his destitution and make believe the ox is his own, and the lender abetting him in this pretence because it is better to hide a transaction that does not strictly conform to the sense of equity. (Bourdieu 2000, 19)

The economic ideas of blind competition that disregard the national, ethnic, racial, or status identities of buyer and seller are hostile and war-like in Kabyle society. As such, the style of interaction, the media used in the exchange, and the goods bought and sold differ accordingly.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading