Trigg=Veblen and Bourdieu on Conspicuous Consumption

7/29/2019 Trigg=Veblen and Bourdieu on Conspicuous Consumption

1/18

j e i JOVRNAL OF ECONOMIC ISSUESVol. XXXV No. 1 Mareh 2001

Veblen, Bo urdieu, and Conspicuous Con sum ptionAndrew B. Trigg

Written just one hundred years ago, Thorstein Veblen's Theory ofthe Leisure Class([1899] 1994) still represents a powerful critique ofthe neoclassical theory of con-sumption. In contrast to the individual's static maximization of utility according toexogenous preferences, as posited by the neoclassical approach, Veblen develops anevolutionary framework in which preferences are determined socially in relation to thepositions of individuals in the social hierarchy. According to Veblen's theory of con-spicuous consump tion, individuals emulate the consumption pattem s of other individ-uals situated at higher points in thehierarchy. The social norms that govem suchemulation change as the economy and its social fabric evolve over time.

Alongside a continuing, though limited, role in mainstream economics (Bagwelland Bem heim 1996; Basmann et al. 1988), the theory of conspicuous con sum ption hasin recent years also been subjected to considerable criticism from outside of this m ain-stream. Three main issues have been raised. First, it has been argued that Veblen'sapproach is too restrictive in relying on the "trickle down" of consumption pattemsfrom the top of the social hierarchy. The pacesetters for consumption may also bethose at the bottom o fth e hierarchy (Fine and Leopold 1993; Lears 1993). It followsfrom this position that conspicuous consumption lacks generality as a theory of con-sump tion since it applies only to luxury go ods. Secon d, since Ve ble n's day it has beenargued that consumers no longer display their wealth conspicuously. Status is con-veyed inmore sophisticated and subtle ways (Canterbery 1998; Mason 1998). Andthird, for those writing in the postmodem tradition, consumer behavior is no longershaped by positions of social class but by lifestyles that cut across the social hierarchy(Featherstone 1991; Mclntyre 1992).


2/18

100 Andrew B. Trigg

In this paper we show that to some extent these argum ents misrepresent V eb len 'soriginal conception of conspicuous consumption and take it out of context in relationto his overall framework. In addition, in order to develop a contem porary response tothese arguments we examine the possible contribution that can be made using thework of Pierre Bou rdieu, the sociologist and anthropolog ist who has been described as"France's leading living social theorist" (Shusterman 1999, 1). The link betweenBourdieu and Veblen has already been noted in the literature. Colin Campbell (1995,103), for example, has described Bourdieu as "the most important contem porary theo-rist of consumption proper" and stated that Bourdieu's main work. Distinction: ASocial Critique of the Judgement of Taste (1984), "bears compa rison, in character andimportance, with Veblen's Theory ofthe Leisure C lass." It can be argued, however,that this relationship has not been widely recognized in the institutionalist literature.For exam ple, the recent critical app raisal of Veb len in the collection of essays editedby Doug B rown (1998) contains no reference to Bourd ieu's work. The contribution ofthis paper is to develop a defense and extension ofthe theory of conspicu ous c onsu m p-tion by exploring the writings of Veblen and Bou rdieu. An introduction to V eb len'stheory of conspicuous con sumption in the first part ofth e paper is followed in the sec-ond part by a presentation ofth e main argum ents against it. In the third part a responseto each argument is developed using Veblen and Bourdieu.

Veblen's Theory of Conspicuous Consum ptionVeblen's theory of conspicuous consumption is based on the evolution of a lei-

sure class whose m emb ers are not required to work but appropriate a surplus produc edby those who do work, the working class. Once societies start to produce a surplus therelationship between private property and status becomes increasingly important. "Itbecomes indispensable to accumulate, to acquire property, in order to retain one'sgood name" (Veblen 1899, 29). A hierarchy develops in which some people ownproperty and others do not. To ow n property is to have status and hono r, a position ofesteem in this hierarchy: to have no property is to have no status.

Of course, the accum ulation of property can ind icate that a person has been effi-cient and productiveit can indicate prowess in financial matters. But Veblen arguesthat inherited wealth confers even m ore status than wealth that is gained through effi-ciency. "By a frirther refinement, wealth acquired passively by transmission fromancestors to other antecedents presently becomes even more honorific than wealthacquired by the possessor's own effort" (Veblen [1899] 1994, 29). The old money


3/18

Veblen, Bourdieu. and Conspicuous Consumption IOI

there must be a display of wealth. Veblen identifies two main ways in which an indi-vidual can display wealth; through extensive leisure activities and through lavishexpenditure on consumption and services. The common thread that runs through bothof these types of display is "the element of waste that is comm on to b o th .. .. In the onecase it is a waste of time and effort, in the other it is a wa ste of goods" (Veblen [1899]1994, 85). Being able to engage in such wasteful activities is the key way in whichmembers of the leisure class display their wealth and status.

In principle, people can display their wealth through either method with equalfacilityall this requires is an effective network for word to get around about a per-son's degree of leisure and the objects he or she possesses. Veblen argues, however,that as the population bec om es more m obile, comm unities becom e less close-knit. In amore mobile society people may be less well informed about the leisure activities inwhich other people engage, and so the display of wealth through consumption ofgoods becomes more important than the display of leisure (Veblen [1899] 1994).

Veblen labels this type of behavior conspicuous consumption. People spendmoney on artifacts of consumption in order to give an indication of their wealth toother members of society. Con spicuous consum ption is viewed by Veblen as the mostimportant factor in determining consumer behavior, not just for the rich but for allsocial classes. "The result is that the mem bers of each stratum accept as their ideal ofdecency the scheme of life in vogue in the next higher stratum, and bend their energiesto live up to that idea l" (84). Each social class tries to emu late the consumption beha v-ior of the class above it, to such an extent that even the poorest people are subject topressures to engage in conspicuous co nsumption. "V ery m uch of squalor and discom-fort will be endured before the last trinket or the last pretence of pecuniary decency isput away" (Veblen [1899] 1994, 85).

This search for status through con sumption is never ending . What at one time mayconfer status may later be acquired by all and confer no statu s. People must always tryto acquire new consumption goods in order to distinguish themselves from others.When Veblen was writing in the 1890s, he viewed this drive for conspicuous con-sumption as the main force behind the consum er boom that was starting to gain pace inthe United States.

Problems with Conspicuous C onsumptionHistorians have also used the theory of conspicuous consumption to explain the

consumer revolution that coincided with the industrial revolution in England duringthe eighteenth ce ntury not least because this represented the birth of consume r soci-


4/18

102 Andrew B. Trigg

in pottery during the eighteenth century by persuading mem bers ofthe European aris-tocracy to use his wa res. "By appealing to the fashionable cry for antiqu ities, by pa n-dering to their requirements, by asking their advice and accepting their smallestorders, by flattery and attention, Wedgwood hoped to monopolize the aristocraticmarke t, and thus win for his wares a special distinction, a social cachet which wouldfilter through to all classes of society" (110).

This interpretation has been contested by Loma Weatherhill (1986), who arguesthat other pottery manufacturers did not take their lead from Wedgwood. WhereasWedgwood courted the London aristocracy by inviting them to his exclusive show-rooms, which were served by Lond on w arehouses, Weatherhill argues that other man-ufacturers used warehouses and distribution networks that were independent fromtheir own busine sses. It was this model that was to prov ide the lead for all pottery m an-ufacturers as the eighteenth century ran into the nineteenth. "Pro duce rs began to relyon a distribution network, and gradually came to rely less on their own London ware-houses" (212).

It has even been argued that Wedg wood may have held back the pace of change inthe pottery industry. W edg w ood's strategy was to court the luxury market by charginga high price, in the hope of eventually reaching a wide r market when he subsequ entlylowered prices. Far from pioneering the opening up of a mass m arket for pottery, B enFine and Ellen Leopold (1993) argue that this strategy cou ld have delayed the increasein demand. If W edgw ood had put all of his effort into affordable pottery that everyo necould buy, the pottery revolution may have been more vibrant than it actually provedto be. "It is at least as plausible to see the luxury m arket of the eighteenth c entury as anobstacle to the developm ent of mass production for the lower classes in the n ineteenthcentury, as it is to view it as a stimulus to em ulation from be low " (79).

Moreover, notwithstanding the dispute over pottery. Fine and Leopold argue thatfor many other goods there is not even an opportunity for emulation to take place.Take, for example, the rise in domestic consumption of coal in the eighteenth cen-tury by at least three million tormes per annum from 1700 to 1800 (Flinn 19 84 ,252).According to Fine and Leopold (1 99 3,79 ), this was made possible by a number of fac-tors, including the cost of production, income levels, and rates of population growth."Yet it would be far-fetched to view the rise in coal consump tion as originating out ofthe emulative behavior ofthe lower classes (with fashion emanating from London asthe major domestic market)."

Indeed, for some goods there may be emulation in the direction opposite to thesupposed "trickle down" from the top ofthe social hierarchy. Drawing from the workof George Field (1970 ), Yngve R amstad (199 8, 13) refers to this as the "status float"


5/18

Veblen, Bourdieu, and Conspicuous Consum ption 103perity, the point can be made that the social origin of this product stem s from work-ing-class consumption. The original success of jean s as a mass-produced item ofconsumption did not take place because ofthe behavior ofthe upper classes.

The argument against "trickle down" is also taken up by Campbell (1987), whoasks how it could have been possible in the industrial revolution for the new capitalistclass to overthrow the aristocracy and at the same time emulate it. Similarly, for T. J.Jackson Lears (1993, 28), "Veblen's assumption that cultural infiuences fiow onlyfrom the top down is not bome out by the historical record." In relation to fashiontrends he quotes Lois Banner (1983) as demonstrating that "the pace-setters in thebeauty sweepstakes were courtesans and chorus girls who were often aped by theirsocial betters" (Lears 1993, 28). For critics of Veblen a common theme is the argu-ment that the "trickle up" of consumption pattems may be at least as important as"trickle down." The theory of conspicuous consumption is argued to be too narrowwith its one-directional focus on the transmission of tastes and preferences, a restric-tion that limits the the ory 's applicability to particular types of luxury goods.

In the wake of Veblen's pioneering contribution, changes in consumer behaviorduring the twentieth century have arguably rendered the theory of conspicuous con-sumption even less relevant. The onset ofthe Great Depression in the 1930s is arguedby Roger M ason to have changed the way in which the wealthy have viewed their con-sumption. "The long-established, very rich, whose money was now 'old' rather than'new' and who had been more circumspect in the ways in which they chose to spendtheir money through the Depression and the New Deal, continued to adopt a morereserved lifestyle as the 1950s arrived" (1998 , 107). Given the hardships experiencedby those at the bottom of the social hierarchy it becam e no longer acceptable for therich to fiaunt their wealth with such abandon. Conspicuous consum ption lost its edgeas a means of displaying wealth, with the rich tuming to charity-related activities tochannel their social and pecun iary ac tivities.

Du ring the post-w ar period it also became more difficult for the rich to distinguishits consumption from the expenditure power of the rising middle classes. John Ken-neth Galbraith (1958 , 72 -3 ) argued that during the 1940s and 1950s "[l]ush expendi-ture could be afforded by so many that it ceased to be useful as a mark of d istinc tion ."Similarly, for Ray Canterbery (1998, 148), "the middle class could now emulate therich in dress and even in automobiles, especially as the rich downsized to Volvos."The combination of less ostentatious behavior by the rich and a high-eaming middleclass has led, for V eblen's c ritics, to a further diminished importance ofthe theory ofconspicuous consumption.Taking this critique one step fiirther, it has been argued that for the postmodem


6/18

104 Andrew B. Trigg

modernism there is a "disaggregation of social structure into lifestyles" (Slater 1997,193), with individuals now free to project their own meanings onto comm odities, withpersonal image more important than display and competition. Richard Mclntyre(1992, 55) writes that "objects and relationships have no firm origin, ground or foun-dation. Consum ption is now the duty of the individual: he no longer exists as a citizenor worker, but as a consum er." Veb len 's approach is argued to be irrelevant and out ofdate in relation to the new cultural makeup of contemporary consum er society.

A Defense: Veblen and BourdieuIn response to these critics, two m ain lines of defense of the theory of c onspicuous

consum ption can be formulated. F irst, we can look more closely at the way in which itis developed in Veb len 's writings. It can be argued that to some ex tent there has been amisrepresentation and over-simplification of Veblen's approach by his critics. Thetheory of conspicuous consumption is more sophisticated and subtle than the versionthat has been d iscussed in the literature. Second, the work of Bourdieu prov ides a con -temporary development of the theory of conspicuous consumption that builds uponsome of the more subtle aspects of Veblen's framework. By examining the relation-ship between Veblen and Bourdieu a more general framework can be developed inwhich the modeling of conspicuous consumption forms a part. Each of the three mainissues raised by Veblen's critics will be considered in tum.

The Trickle-Down EffectThe first issue to be considered is the charge that the trickle-down model that isassociated w ith Veblen is too restrictive since there can also be a "trickle up " of tastes

from the bottom of the social hierarchy. In developing a defense of the theory of con-spicuous consumption against this charge we can explore the relationship betweenVeblen and Bourdieu. A key point of Veb len 's analysis of different sections of the lei-sure class is that established m emb ers of the upper class use their accumulated cultureto distinguish themselves from those of so called "new money." Canterbery (1999),for example, in applying Veblen's analysis to Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby (1925),argues that the social upstart Gatsby lacks the necessary culture to win the love o f therefined D aisy, who is married into a family of established m oney. C ulture provides abarrier to entering the top echelons of the leisure class. For Bourdieu a key factor to beconsidered is the cultural capital that is acquired at different poin ts in the social ladder.


7/18

Veblen, Bourdieu, and Conspicuous Consum ption 105

system (Bourdieu and Passeron 1990), the key role of cultural capital acquired outsideof education is used to explain the superior performance of children from privilegedbackgrounds.

Drawing upon this analysis of education, in Distinction (1984, 23) Bourdieuargues that the acquisition of cultural capital is "inscribed, as an objective demand, inmem bership o fthe bourgeo isie and in the qualifications giving access to its rights andduties." The aesthetic taste of individuals with high cultural capital is used to securepositions of status in the social hierarchy through exercising a mark of distinction."Taste is an acquired disposition to 'differentiate' and 'a p p re c ia te '. . . to establish andmark differences by a process of d is ti nct io n ... (ensuring) recognition (in the ordinarysense)" (466). Moreover, this process of distinction is more pow erful, and provides amore general means of exclusion, than conspicuous consumption: "The naive exhibi-tionism of'conspicuous consumption', which seeks distinction in the crude display ofill-mastered luxury, is nothing compared to the unique capacity ofthe pure gaze, aquasi-creative pow er which sets the aesthete apart from the comm on herd by a radicaldifference which seems to be inscribed in 'persons'" (31). Although Veblen ([1899]1994) focuses m ore specifically on the consum ption of goods and services, it should,however, be noted that his emphasis on the aesthetic nature of taste also leaves openthe possibility of considering tastes more generally in his social theory. Veblen writesof "this cultivation ofthe aesthetic faculty" that "requires time and application, and thedem ands m ade upon the gentleman in this direction therefore tend to change his life ofleisure into a more or less arduous application to the business of leam ing how to live alife of ostensible leisure in a becom ing w ay" (75).

For Bourdieu, in order to achieve distinction taste is always a negative phen om e-non in that it is based on a criticism or differentiation from that which is popular. "It isno accident that, when they have to be justified, they are asserted purely nega tively, bythe refusal of other tastes" (1984, 56). A possible illustration of this drive for distinc-tion is provided by recent developm ents in the market for classical mu sic. Opera, oncethe exclusive preserve of the upper classes, has entered into the realm of popularmusic. In Europe the three tenorsDomingo, Carreras, and Pavarottisang tosell-out open air shows in the early 1990s. By the mid 1990s, however, the SundayTimes (April 21 , 1996) reported that "classical music has becom e the latest victim ofmiddle-class 'culture fatigue '" and the "loss of interest by those who regard opera as aladder for social ad va nc em en t... resulted in lower classical record sales and decliningconcert au diences."

In the same way that those higher up the social hierarchy will tend to distinguishthem selves from those at the bottom , it also follows for Bourdieu that those at the bot-


8/18

106 Andrew B. Trigg

hunge r. This contrasts with the eating habits ofth e upper classe s, wh o are mo re inter-ested in treating food as an art form. A wo rking-class ho usehold wou ld not tend to beimpressed by fashions such as nouvelle cuisine, in which the presentation of food ismore important than the quantity on offer. With fumiture, Bourdieu distinguishesbetween the fixation the upper classes have for antiques and the more practicalrequirements of working-class households. And with clothing he argues that work-ing-class households tend to be not so infiuenced by haute couture as the upperclasses.

Between the dominant upper class and the dominated working class Bourdieuexamines the role of the middle classes, who aspire to the tastes of the upper class,although insufficient cultural capital mea ns that they specialize in less legitimate areasof culture. And , as we have seen, the tastes ofth e midd le class are also formulated neg -atively in opposition to the "popular" working class tastes. However, for the upperclasses to maintain their positions of status a distinction from the tastes oft he middleclasses is required, which can involve a retum to popular/working class tastes:

The artist agrees with the 'bourgeois' in one respect: he prefers naivety to'preten tious ness '. The essentialist merit oft he 'com m on peo ple ' is that theyhave none ofthe pretensions to art (or pow er) which inspire the ambitions ofthe 'petit bourgeois'. Their indifference tacitly acknowledges the monopoly.That is why, in the my thology of artists and intellectuals, whose outflankingand double-negating strategies sometimes lead them back to 'popular' tastesand opinions, the 'p eo pl e' so often play a role not unlike that ofthe peasantryin the conservative ideologies ofthe declining aristocracy.' (Bourdieu 1984,62)For Bourdieu there is, therefore, a "trickle up " of tastes from the working class to

the upper class that allows the latter to outfiank the middle class, whose pretentious-ness leaves them confused by the way in wh ich popular tastes are embraced. B ourdieualso identifies this phenom enon in relation to the adoption of peasant dishes by thosewith high cultural capital (Bourdieu 198 4,18 5) and in relation to folk m usic and sport(209).

Figure 1 compares two altemative models for the transmission of tastes betweensocial classes. Figure l(a) is Veblen's trickle-down model, in which tastes transmitfrom the upper class through to the middle and working class stratum s. For B ourdieu,however, there is rather a "trickle ro und " of tastes, with upper class tastes drawing attimes from popu lar working class tastes and also transmitting to the less sophisticatedmidd le class (Figure l(b )). Instead of a one-directional fiow of tastes the transmission


9/18

Veblen, Bourdieu, and Conspicuous Consum ption 107Figure t. The Transmission of Tastes

UPPER CLASS

MIDDLE CLASS

WORKING CLASS

(a) The trickle-down model

UPPER CLASS

WORKING CLASS

MIDDLE CLASS


10/18

108 Andrew B. Trigg

to the working class. Whereas Veb len argued that the working cla sses, although ham -pered by a lack of resources, are subject to the drive of emulation, Bou rdieu developshis notion of popular culture to argue that the working classes are resistant and op-posed to the tastes of those higher up the social hierarchy. On one hand this could beregarded as an updating of Veblen's framework in view ofthe increasing importanceof popular culture since the last century. On the other hand it could also be argued thatBourdieu's framework is somewhat infiexible in dismissing the possibility of thistrickle-down effect. The dotted line in Figure l(b ) leaves open the possibility of devel-oping a flexible model of taste transmission that embraces both the trickle-down andtrickle-round effects. Figure 1 provides a basis for exam ining the similarities and dif-ferences between Veblen and Bourdieu, while at the same time emphasizing the po-tential flexibility of the trickle-round model compared with its trickle-downcounterpart.

The Subtlety of Conspicuous ConsumptionAgainst the charge that the theory of consp icuous c onsum ption lacks subtlety we

can draw strongly from both Veblen and Bourdieu. Veblen argues that consumersfrom all social classes, even the ambitious middle class, are not necessarily con-sciously trying to conspicuously consume:

For the great body of the people in any modem community, the proximateground of expenditure in excess of what is required for physical com fort is nota conscious effort to excel in the expensiveness o fthe ir visible consum ption,so much as it is a desire to live up to the conventional standard of decency inthe amount of grade of goods consumed. (Veblen 1899, 103)The unconscious cultural force that conspicuous consumption imposes is illus-trated by the propensity to buy expensive items that are not even seen by outsiders,

such as underclothing and kitchen utensils. The standards of decency extend to alltypes of consumption without individuals necessarily consciously trying to impressothers in their behavior. Emulation operates at a "second remove," an aspect ofV eb len 's approach that in the view of Ram stad (19 98, 16) is "unive rsally ignored " byVeblen's critics.

This unconscious aspect of behavior in Veblen's approach is also maintained inBourdieu 's framework. The starting point for Bourdieu is the schooling system , wherea mythology is generated that the advantages enjoyed by children with privileged


11/18

Veblen, Bourdieu, and Conspicuous Consum ption 109

cultural capital is not displayed overtly, but rather is interpreted as being due to theindividual merit that is naturally bestowed on each student.Building upon this analysis of education Bourdieu introduces the concept ofhabitus, a theoretical device that is aimed at reconciling the age-old conflict in sociol-ogy between stmctu re and agency. Bourdieu defines habitus as a system of "principleswhich generate and organize practices and representations that can be objectivelyadapted to their outcomes without presupposing a conscious aiming at ends or anexpress mastery ofth e operations necessary in order to attain them " (Bourdieu 1990,53). These principles or dispositions are not mles through which the social structurestrictly determines behavior; neither is there unfettered rational action o fthe type pos-tulated by writers such as James Coleman (1990). The principles that organize peo-pl e's ac tions, which make up the habitus, are adaptable over time depen ding upon theconstraints and uncertainties that evolve under different situations, but individuals arenot conscious ofthe cultural force that guides their behavior.

M ichele Lamont and Annette Lareau (198 8, 158) note that "in contrast to Veblenwho dealt with conspicuo us consumption (i.e. 'show ing off which normally would bea conscious act), Bourdieu . . . thinks that most signals are sent uncon sciously b ecausethey are leamed through dispo sitions, or habitus, or are the unintended classificatoryresults of cultural code s." This interpretation m ay, howe ver, represent an over-simp li-fication of Veblen's approach, since as we have seen it can be argued that he in factalso views conspicuous consum ption as an uncon scious act. Rather than providing analtemative to Veblen, Bou rdie u's concept o fthe habitus can be seen as a formalizationof the insights provided in Veblen's sophisticated analysis of conspicuousconsumption.

This formalization of Veb len 's approach could also be interpreted to represent acontribution to one of the problems of evolutionary analysis, namely its lack ofemphasis on human agency. Anne Mayhew (1998) argues that the debate with neo-classical economics has pushed the evolutionary approach away from a fiexible con-sideration of human agency. By allowing individuals to develop their strategies overtime, subject to stmctural constraints, the concept of the habitus could potentiallymake an important contribution to developing a "revitalized evolutionary approach"(456).

Postmodern LifestylesThere has been some debate in recent years over the relationship between


12/18

110 Andrew B. Trigg

Although V eblen wrote his Theory of the Leisure Class ([1899] 1994) more than ahundred years ago, it should be noted that he did not dismiss the possibility of therebeing multifarious lifestyles, although he may not have used the word "lifestyle" inthis regard. He came very close, however, referring to "changing styles" (174) and"schem es of life" (84). At one point he also refers to the various "branch es of know l-edge": "So , for instance, in our time there is the know ledge of the dead languages andthe occult sciences; of correct spelling, of syntax and prosody; of the various forms ofdom estic m usic and other household art; of the latest properties of dress, fumiture, andequipage; of games, sports, and fancy-bred animals, such as dogs and race-courses"(45). Each of these becom es in vogue at different points in time, becom ing "conven-tional accomplishments of the leisure class " (Veblen 1899, 45 ).Using the concepts of cultural capital and hab itus, Bourdieu is able to build a the-oretical framework in which the lifestyles of different social groups can be understoodin relation to the social hierarchy. First of all, the habitus explains how there can be agrouping of lifestyle elements through particular principles that infiuence the behaviorof individuals. Second, different types of lifestyles are associated with particular com-binations of cultural and economic capital. Lifestyles do not relate only to verticalpoints in the class hierarchy, as in Veblen, but also cut across the social hierarchy hori-zontally. This provides the basis for a coherent response to the drive by somepostmodemists to reduce consumption to a pluralistic collection of lifestyles, devoidof social stmcture. Indeed, Bridget Fowler (1997 , 70) argues that "B ou rdie u's w ork isbest understood as a sociological rebuttal of the history of much cmde postmodemistthought."

The fiexibility of Bourdieu's framework in this regard is based upon recognitionthat different types of lifestyle can ga in legitimacy a ccord ing to the way in wh ich classstmggle and competition develop. Moreover, hierarchies of legitimacy for differentlifestyles develop in relation to different types of capital. Alongside cultural capital,Bourdieu gives a primary role to economic capital, a general category that includesmonetary rewards from stocks and shares, employment, and property.

For Bourdieu the intelligentsia, who hold particularly high stocks of cultural cap i-tal, tend to exercise highbrow tastes in mod em art, classical music more establishedand legitimate culture. Those with specifically high economic capital, who lack thenecessary skills associated with high cultural capital, tend to exercise more middle-brow taste. In relation to classical music, for exam ple, they lack the social upbringingthat is required for a thorough appreciation of classical music. Bourdieu (1984, 75)observes that "when the child is introduced at an early age to a 'noble' instm-men t especially the piano the effect is at least to produce a more familiar relation-


13/18

Veblen, Bourdieu, and Conspicuous Consumption 111Figure 2. Bourdieu's Classification of Lifestyles

Cultural Capital-h

3 -1-uooc8

LifestylesA

LifestylesC

LifestylesB

LifestylesD

Source: Rosengren 1995.

outlet. As a form of art, film is not as legitimate as classical music Bourdieu (1984 ,87) refers to film as 'not yet fully legitimate' art. Distinction may also be achieved inan appreciation, for examp le, of jaz z, com ic boo ks, photography , and, particularly forthose with high econom ic capital, the whole array of consum er goods available undercontemporary capitalism.

In addition to those who specialize in either economic or cultural capital B ourdieualso classifies particular lifestyles for those who hold both types of capital in largehigh and low quantities. Figure 2 lays out a simplified version of Bourdieu's socialspace in which there are four possible com binations of cultural and econom ic capital.Block A contains people who have positive economic and cultural capital. Peoplesuch as lawyers and architects can have both the economic resources for expensivetastes in consum ption g oods and the know-how to appreciate legitimate culture. At theother extreme is block D the lifestyles associated with the working classes that haveneither economic nor cultural capital. For Bourdieu the constraints of economic andcultural capital make it difficult for people to move from block D to block A.

The remaining diagonal blocks, blocks B and C, represent the lifestyles of indi-viduals lacking in one ofthe two types of capital. In block B individuals have positive


14/18

112 Andrew B. Trigg

Over time, there can be cross-mobility between blocks. For example, a familywith a small business but low cultural cap ital (block B) may chan nel its resources intopurchasing an education for its children, who then seek to develop the lifestyle ofblock C. And, importantly for Bourdieu, another example of social mobility is the"new middle class" that is largely employed in culture and service industries. An ini-tial low stock of cultural capital "gives them an uncomfortable relation to existingtaste hierarchies, yet at the same tim e prom pts them to advoc ate, or at least to be com -fortable with, a new and dismptive scheme of cultural distinctions and legitimations(postm odem ism), which they can use to further their interests in the econom ic, socialand cultural fields, and which correspondingly enters into the restm cturing ofth e classstmcture it se lf (Slater 1997, 160). Although Figure 2 provide s a useful starting pointfor understanding Bourdieu it fails to capture the three-dimensional nature of themodel. The important third dimension is the dynamic change in combinations of cul-tural and econom ic capital that takes place over time (Bou rdieu 1984, 114).

This emphasis upon social mobility results in a much less vertical status stm cturethan that associated w ith Veblen. W ithin the m iddle class, for exam ple, there are classfractions, some of which are growing (such as the new middle class) and some ofwhich are declining (such as farmers). It is not "accidental that the oldest classes orclass fractions are also the classes in decline, such as farmers and industrial and com-mercial proprietors" (Bourdieu 1984, 108). Individuals in declining class fragmentstend to adopt conservative or old-fashioned tastes by way of resistance to chang e. Thenew middle classes are more innovative and indeed help to shape that change. WhileVeblen also embraces change in his evolutionary approach, the vertical nature of hisstatus stmctu re m eans that there are within-class no rms that predom inate at each pointin the structure. In low er-middle-class hou seho lds, for exam ple, the norm is for men towork but "the middle-class wife still carries on the business of vicarious leisure, forthe good name ofthe household and its master" (Veblen 1899, 81). This can be con-trasted with Bourdieu's observation that women from more privileged classes haveconsiderable leeway as to whether they work or not (Bourdieu 1984, 178). The exis-tence of class fractions means that there are not the sam e overriding norms that can begeneralized ac ross a particular point in the social hierarchy.

In this interpretation of Bourdieu the dynamic nature of lifestyles, under whatsome would refer to as a postmodem society, can be incorporated into an analysis ofclass structure. The dual role of capital in its cultural and e conom ic forms enables theanalysis of changes in different lifestyles in Bourdieu's framework. As Chuck Dyke(19 99 ,19 4) argues, Bou rdie u's analysis of different forms of capital "is a well-consid-


15/18

Veblen, Bourdieu, and Conspicuous Consumption 113Conclusions

This paper has considered three main issues that have been raised by critics of thetheory of conspicuous consum ption. Each issue has been discussed by exam ining theoriginal conception of the theory by Veblen and the contemporary contribution ofBourdieu. First, it has been argued that the theory is too restrictive because of itsone-directional "trickle d ow n" of tastes from the top to the bottom of the social hierar-chy. This issue has been addressed by developing the im portance given by Veblen toculture as a barrier to social mobility. Bourdieu introduces the concept of cultural cap-ital in order to interpret individual tastes as an accumulated stock of knowledge. Indi-viduals adopt strategies that enable them to acquire the required cultural capital tosecure particular positions in the social hierarchy. In taking this approach to taste for-mation, Bourdieu is able to show that there can be feedback of tastes from the bottomto the top of the social ladder. The u pper classes som etimes adopt the tastes of those atthe bottom of the social ladder in order to outflank members of the aspiring middleclass who find it difficult to compete due to insufficient stocks of cultural capital. Incontrast to the restrictive trickle-down model a more general trickle-round model issuggested by Bourdieu's approach.

Related to the trickle-down issue a second charge has been made that the theory ofconspicuous consumption lacks subtlety and sophistication. During the post-warperiod con sumers are argued to be less overt in their display of wealth than in V eblen'sday. It has been shown, how ever, that even during his time Veblen recognized that theupper class sections of the ruling class were exercising sophistication in their con-sumption behav ior. Indeed, for all social classes conspicuous consumption is not pos-tulated to be a conscious act, but rather a standard of decency that exerts socialpressure on the behavior of individuals. A formalization of this approach is providedby Bourdieu's development of the concept of habitus, which is a set of principles thatinfluence unconscious decisions within an uncertain and changing environm ent. Thisis argued to provide a potential contribution to the evolutionary approach by incorpo-rating the agency of individuals in the context of a structural proces s.

The third issue that has been raised is the charge by postmodern writers that thetheory of conspicuous consumption is too restrictive to address the multifarious life-styles that characterize contemporary capitalism. Veblen allows for different"schemes of life" and "style s" of fashion in his analysis, but there is no explicit consid-eration of lifestyles, which is a relatively new concept. In addition, Veblen's modellooks at these schem es of life vertically, according to different points on the social lad-der. A contemporary response to postmodernism is provided by the analysis of differ-ent lifestyles by Bourdieu. Using the concept of habitus and distinguishing between


16/18

114 Andrew B. Triggemployed in cultural and service-related industries, a phenom enon that has also beenexamined by postmodem writers.

By looking at the relationship between Veblen and Bourdieu a contemporaryresponse can therefore be provided to some o fthe main issues which have been raisedby critics of the theory of conspicuous consumption. This introduction to Bourdieuprovides a potential development ofth e theory of conspicuous co nsumption, b uildingupon the some ofthe insights provided in Veb len's w ritings more than a century ago.

ReferencesBagw ell, L. S., and B. D. Bernheim. "Ve blen Effects in a Theory of Conspicuous Consu mption." Ameriean

Economic Review 86, no. 3 (1996): 349 -373 .Banner, L. American Beauty. New York: Knopf, 1983.Basm ann, R. L., D. J. Molina, and D. J. Slottje. "A No te on Measuring Ve blen 's Theory of Conspicuous Con-sumption." Review of Economics and Statistics 70, no. 3 (1988): 532-5 35.Bourdieu, P. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of T aste. London: Routledge, 1984.

. The Logic of Pra ctice. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1990.Bourdieu, P., and J. C. Passeron. Reproduction in Education, Society, and Culture. London: Sage, 1990.Brown, D ., ed. Thorstein Veblen in the Tw enty-First Century. Aldershot: Edward Elgar, 1998.Campbell, C. The Roman tic Ethic and the Spirit of Modern Consumerism. Oxford: Blaekwell, 1987.

. "The Sociology of Consumption." In Acknowledging Consumption, edited by D. Miller. London:Routledge, 1995,96-126.Canterbery, E. R. "The Theory ofthe Leisure Class and the Theory of Dem and." In The Founding of Institu-tional Economics, edited hyW . J. Samuels. London: Routledge, 1998, 139-156.. "Thorstein Veblen and The Great Gatsby." Journal of Economic Issues 33, no. 2 (June 1999):297-304.Colema n, J. S. Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1990.Dyke, C. "Bourdieuean Dynamics: The American Middle-Class Self-Constructs." In Bourdieu; A CriticalReader, edited by R. Shusterman. Oxford: Blaekwell, 1999, 192-213.Featherstone, M. Consumer Culture and Postmodernism. London: Sage, 1991.

Field, G. A. "The Status Float Phenom enon: The U pward D iffusion of Innovation." Business Horizons 13(August 1970): 45- 52.Fine, B., and E. L eopold. The W orld of Consumption. London: Routledge, 1993.Fitzgerald, F. Scott. The Great Gatsby. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1925.Flinn, M., with the assistance of D. Stoker. The History ofthe British Coal Industry. Vol. 2, / 700-1830: TheIndustrial Revolution. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984.Fowler, B. Pierre Bourdieu and Cultural Theory. London: Sage, 1997.Galbraith, J. K. The Affluent Society. Bombay: Asia Publishing House, 1958.Hoksbergen, R. "Postmodernism and Institutionalism: Toward a Resolution ofthe Debate on Relativism."Journal of Econom ic Issues 28, no. 3 (September 1994): 670 -713 .Klein, P. A. "Is Postmodem Institutionalism the Wave ofthe Future? A Reply to Hoksbergen." yo ur /ia /o /Economic Issues 32, no. 3 (September 1998): 83 3-8 43 .Lamont, M ., and A. Lareau. "Cultural Cap ital: Allusions, Gaps, and Glissandos in Reeent Theoretieal Devel-


17/18

Veblen, Bourdieu, and Conspicuous Consumption 115Ma yhew, A. "On the Difficulty of Evolutionary A nalysis." Cam bridge Journal of Economics 22, no. 4 (July1998): 449-461.Melntyre, R. "Consumption in Contemporary Capitalism: Beyond Marx and Veblen." Review of SocialEconomy 50 (Spring 1992): 50-57.McKendrick, N., J. Brewer, and J. H. Plumb. The Birth of a Consumer Society, the Commercialization of

Eighteenth-Century England. London: Europa, 1982.Ram stad, Y. "Veb len's Propensity for Emulation: Is it Passe? " In Thorstein Veblen in the Tw enty-First Cen-

tury, edited by D. Brown. Aldershot: Edward Elgar, 1998, 3-27.Rosengren, K. E. "Substantive Theories and Fonnal ModelsBourdieu Confronted." European Journal of

Communication 10, no. 1 (1995): 7-39.Shusterman, R. "Introduction: Bourdieu as Philosopher." In Bourdieu: A Critical Reader, edited by R.Shusterman. Oxford: Blaekwell, 1999, 1-13.Slater, D. Consumer Culture and Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1997.Veblen, T. The Theory ofthe Leisure Class. In The Collected Works of Thorstein Veblen. Vol. 1. 1899. Re-print, London: Routledge, 1994, 1-404.W eatherhill, L. The Growth ofthe Pottery Industry in England 1660-1815. New York: Garland Publishing,1986.


18/18

Documents

Trigg=Veblen and Bourdieu on Conspicuous Consumption