Two Reviews of Roger S. Mason: "Conspicuous Consumption: A Study of Exceptional Consumer Behavior"

Two Reviews of Roger S. Mason: "Conspicuous Consumption: A Study of Exceptional ConsumerBehavior"Conspicuous Consumption: A Study of Exceptional Consumer Behavior by MasonReview by: David Hamilton and Rick TilmanJournal of Economic Issues, Vol. 17, No. 3 (Sep., 1983), pp. 791-799Published by: Association for Evolutionary EconomicsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4225348 .

Accessed: 25/06/2014 04:37

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Association for Evolutionary Economics is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toJournal of Economic Issues.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.96 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 04:37:00 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aee

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4225348?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


J e' JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ISSUES Vol. XVII No. 3 September 1983

Two reviews of Roger S. Mason:

Conspicuous Consumption: A Study of Exceptional Consumer Behavior New York: St. Martin's Press, 1981. Pp. x, 156. $25.00.

The contributions of Thorstein Veblen to economic thought were and still are largely ignored in Great Britain. The flow of economic ideas across the Atlantic has been very much a one-way passage with the exception of minor disputations over arcane matters of detail as in the capital controversy between the two Cambridges. John A. Hobson did show his awareness of the work of Veblen in a biographical volume that treated of his ideas, but then Hobson was outside the mainstream of British economics, having disgraced himself by not accepting Say's Law in the late nineteenth century. The first recognition of Veblen's work in England was in a review in The Economic Journal of an English edition of The Theory of the Lei- sure Class in 1925.

Now comes from Britain a volume on conspicuous consumption some eighty-two years after the initial U.S. publication of The Theory of the Leisure Class. The author does not set for himself as large a scope as did Veblen. The latter was concerned with the whole process of consumption. Roger S. Mason is concerned largely with that part of the process Veblen labeled "conspicuous" and he further limits himself to that part of conspicuous consumption associated with individual consumption. Save for a few fleeting comments at the conclusion of the book he does not con- sider consumption by corporate bodies, whether private or public.

Within this limitation, he studies conspicuous consumption in "traditional," "achieving," and "affluent" societies. Before carrying out his analysis he examines the treatment of conspicuous consumption in eco-

791



792 Two Reviews

nomic theory prior to Veblen as well as subsequent to his contribution. As the sub-title of the book would indicate, Mason considers conspicuous consumption to be exceptional behavior and apparently considers the conventional account of consumer behavior to be the more general case. He notes that references to ostentatious behavior can be found in John Locke, Adam Smith, John Rae, and Alfred Marshall. He finds that while Rae and Marshall attributed the phenomenon to vanity, Smith and later Veblen saw its social and status implications.

To Mason, conspicuous consumption is a process by virtue of which individuals may achieve or maintain status. He differentiates, following the sociologists, between ascribed and achieved status. The type predominant in any society will determine the significance of conspicuous consumption. In traditional societies by and large, ascribed status is predominant. Individuals may not advance themselves by conspicuous consumption beyond that status into which they have been born. This, however, does not mean that conspicuous consumption is of no consequence. It is necessary to engage in horizontal conspicuous consumption, keeping on a par with others of the same status. But no one or group can by conspicuous consumption advance in status. Thus, in traditional societies the possibilities for conspicuous consumption are limited.

Societies that have broken out of tradition, and in which economic development is taking place, are characterized by achieved status. That does not mean that ascribed status totally disappears, but individuals may move out of lower status positions. In these types of societies, conspicuous consumption may be vertical. Status groups may strive to propel themselves upward by an obvious display of consumption. This type of conspicuous display was very characteristic in the United States in the latter half of the nineteenth century and the early part of the twentieth. It was also characteristic of English society, but less so than in the United States. In Great Britain ascribed status still played a significant role among those from an earlier era.

In the affluent society the nature of conspicuous consumption is in for modification. In the preceding stage of the achieving society the grosser forms of conspicuous consumption by the rich provoked a reaction by the less fortunately placed members of society. This has a tendency to reduce the conspicuous consumption of the rich in the affluent society, at least to make it less conspicuous. Secondly, education supercedes conspicuous consumption as a means of achieving status and status increasingly be- comes associated with "meritocracy." Nevertheless, conspicuous consumption is necessary in order to dispose of the mass production associated with affluent societies. The function of the middle class is to handle



Conspicuous Consumption 793

this abundance, somewhat in the manner in which Thomas Malthus thought the landlords of his time could uphold consumption in order to maintain employment and economic stability. But at this stage of society the working classes do not engage in conspicuous consumption as a means of upward mobility, largely because in the meritocracy only education will open doors. Some vulgar conspicuous consumption may be engaged in by the lower middle classes who emulate their immediate betters.

Despite the title of the book and the reference to Veblen, Professor Mason's concept of conspicuous consumption is quite different from that of Veblen. Certainly in Smith, Rae, Marshall, and others some mention is made of ostentation. And most certainly it is viewed as an exceptional type of behavior. But that was not true of Veblen. When The Theory of the Leisure Class was published economists were battling over the meaning of utility theory and its place in economics. Veblen was a party to that controversy as were some of his students, particularly E. H. Downey and Wesley Mitchell. Veblen made his doubts well known in the essay "The Limitations of Marginal Utility" sometime after The Leisure Class.

The Theory of the Leisure Class is not restricted to the phenomenon of conspicuous consumption. It is an alternative theory of consumption to that of the hedonistic theory of utilitarianism. Veblen argues quite clearly that goods are used simultaneously as instruments to achieve some end-in- view as well as symbols of status. Sometimes the first is predominant, as in a factory setting, and sometimes the latter is predominant, as at a wedding. But both aspects of consumption are present and determinative at all times. There is no such thing as "pure" conspicuous consumption. This is clear from the following passage taken at the conclusion of the chapter on conspicuous consumption in The Leisure Class:

Consumable goods, and even productive goods, generally show the two elements in combination, as constituents of their utility; although in a general way, the element of waste tends to predominate in articles de- signed for productive use. Even in articles which appear at first glance to serve for pure ostentation only, it is always possible to detect the presence of some, at least ostensible, useful purpose; and on the other hand, even in special machinery and tools contrived for some particular industrial process, as well as in the rudest appliances of human industry, the traces of conspicuous waste, or at least of the habit of ostentation, usually be- come evident on a close scrutiny.'

This distinction between the ceremonial use of goods and the productive use of goods is but one form in which the ceremonial/technological distinction common to all culture was used by Veblen in analyzing our economy. In The Theory of Business Enterprise it is manifest to the distinction



794 Two Reviews

between business and industry. Without such an awareness of this more general distinction one is apt to come off with the impression that Veblen was simply analyzing "funny" consumption. But caviar is both an item of conspicuous consumption and a food; the Lever Brothers Building is both a place of work and a monument to corporate position.

Mason fails to recognize that status or ranking is not of individuals per se. What is ranked is the role or roles that a particular individual happens to occupy. And given that role, society prescribes the canons of consumption appropriate to that role. Maids wearing mink coats are as inappropri- ate as corporate executives dressed in bib overalls. An individual cannot achieve status merely by engaging in conspicuous consumption. One's consumption must be appropriate to the role that one is in at the moment. What is appropriate dress for the wagerer at the race-track is not appropriate dress for the funeral director at a funeral. This, of course, means that one cannot gain status by spendiferous consumption. Racketeers cannot displace the ambassador for Belgium at a State Department dinner by outspending the latter in Georgetown residences. Role comes first; conspicuous consumption follows. We buy graduation garments upon having completed the requirements for authentic playing of the role of engineer.

Achieved and ascribed status is a confusing distinction. If one's status ranking stems from the role one occupies at any one time, then perhaps in closed societies, where the roles one may play are prescribed at birth, it may be warranted to speak of ascribed status; and to speak of achieved status in those more open societies in which the pre-natal choice of one's parents is not quite so fateful may be warranted. But to use these terms seems to confuse what is being ranked in all social systems-roles, not people. It is not because the duke was first deemed to have status that he was made a duke; he is deemed to have high status because he was born into and occupies a ducal role. And the reason for the problem with ascribed and achieved status is that birth even in open socities has some rather strong bearing on the roles that one later in life will be able to achieve. 'Tis far better to be born a Rockefeller even in our open society than to be born a lowly Smith!

If one realizes that conspicuous consumption is authentic consumption, given a particular role, then one realizes that it is not "exceptional consumption." It is a constant and, ironically, at the same time it may have been diminished in an affluent society by that very affluence. The auto- mobile, while being a means of demarcating status (the Lincoln vs. the Ford), by its widespread distribution reduces status considerations as they once existed in a society with some people confined to foot locomo- tion while others rode in elegant broughams. There is less marked differ-




ence between the man at the intersection with a Ford and the man with a Lincoln than there is between the man on foot and the man in the brougham. But to note this fact is not to argue that conspicuous consumption is not present in both situations.

Mason hints at the technological/ceremonial distinction so characteristic of Veblen and institutionalism in general when he infers that conventional theory is based on utility maximization to which conspicuous consumption is an exception. In some passages he uses the word "utility" in an instrumental fashion, using it to refer to the instrumental usefulness of goods in somewhat the manner that Adam Smith used it. This is not the Benthamite or utilitarian meaning of utility. In that latter discourse "utility" refers to pleasant feelings that come in infinitesimal increments. How else could we apply the calculus to calculations of utility maxima! If we are talking about goods as instruments to achieve some end-in-view in a continuous flow of activity (Veblen's life process), then any kind of a maximum is irrelevant as well as indeterminate.

The confused use of utility by mainstream economics, sometimes meaning feelings of satisfaction and sometimes meaning usefulness in a tool sense-in the sense it is meaningful to note that an adjustable wrench is useful (has utility) in removing a series of hexagonal nuts of different dimensions-confuses the whole issue of consumption and what deter- mines the value of goods. Most certainly feelings are present in all consumption situations. But are feelings the basis for determining the "goodness" of goods? The answer is unequivocally no. Feelings may cause further examination of a judgment that a good has goodness. But the judgment of the goodness of goods is an instrumental one just as in the case of the adjustable wrench. Even the utmost ceremonial considerations simu- late the instrumental. And both ceremonial and instrumental considerations are intertwined in all consumption decisions. When we say that we need a new suit or a new car or a new house, the need component encom- passes both a need in an authentic (ceremonial) sense and a need in an instrumental (technological) sense.

Professor Mason's serious treatment of conspicuous consumption is to be welcomed from the other side of the Atlantic. Its weakness is its failure to appreciate the dichotomous distinction Veblen was making between conspicuous and instrumental consumption. And that failure leads him to view conspicuous consumption as "exceptional consumption" that waxes and wanes somewhat in the fashion of an epidemic disease.

One last point needs to be made concerning the author's claims to empirical verification. Early on he asserts that the validity of Veblen's thesis was taken for granted and that it was not based on any empirical evidence.



796 Two Reviews

Anyone familiar with the anthropological literature of the time knows precisely from whence came Veblen's thesis. In other works he did leave the scholar's tell-tale evidence of where he had been in the form of foot- notes. This he did not do in The Theory of the Leisure Class, leaving a rather arrogant statement in the preface that any knowledgeable person would know from whence he was coming. That Professor Mason has not done and he has properly footnoted his work. But otherwise his metho- dology differs not from that of Veblen.

DAVID HAMILTON University of New Mexico

Note

1. Thorstein Veblen, The Theory of the Leisure Class (New York: Modern Library, 1937), pp. 100-101.

British author Roger S. Mason (born 1940) is senior lecturer in the Department of Business and Administration at the University of Sal- ford in England. He is probably unknown to most American economists. Nevertheless, he has written an excellent book that should be read by every neoinstitutionalist. It is a pathbreaking attempt to give Thorstein Veblen's theory of conspicuous consumption more precision than Veblen gave it, and to test it using comparative historical and casual empiricist meth- odologies.

Veblen's theory of conspicuous consumption is often discussed in mis- leading and simplistic ways, but on rare occasions attempts have been made to analyze it with the analytic apparatus of neoclassical economics. Harvey Leibenstein, Robert Steiner and Joseph Weiss, and Panayiotis Afxentiou are perhaps the only scholarly writers in recent years to advance understanding of Veblenian conspicuous consumption.' However, in 1979 John Brooks attempted in his Showing Ojf in America: From Conspicuous Consumption to Parody Display to offer a Veblenian analysis of contemporary American consumption patterns.2 That book, although written for the layperson, offers many interesting examples of the methods Americans use when they consume to enhance their status. All told, these works are instructive to neoinstitutionalists who too often are content to repeat Veblen's words without subjecting his theory to critical analysis, much less testing it empirically.




But what was Veblen's thesis regarding conspicuous consumption? In his discussion of it, Leibenstein differentiated between what he called (1) snob, (2) bandwagon, and (3) Veblen effects. His typology raises these questions: Is conspicuous consumption what elite groups consume against the mainstream trend (snob effects)? Is it what mainstream America is consuming, that is, the numbers game (bandwagon effects)? Or is it a function of price; the more expensive the commodity the more status it bequeaths (Veblen effects)? A textural exegesis of The Theory of the Leisure Class shows that while Veblen believed price to be the main de- terminant of the status a commodity will give, ultimately there is no essen- tial incompatibility between the theory of conspicuous consumption and snob or bandwagon effects. In all three cases the consumer is trying to enhance his status.

Mason shows considerable methodological acumen at the outset of his study when he argues that a "barefoot empiricist" approach will not ade- quately test the theory of conspicuous consumption. His argument is that survey research is ineffective because few if any consumers will admit to having emulatory motives. To inquire whether their purchases are de- signed to enhance their status aspirations or motivated by utilitarian considerations is naive since few will tell the truth. Who wants to admit that their values are not their "own"? Consequently, Mason uses methods that might loosely be labeled "casual empiricist." Essentially, he relies on mar- keting research done by others and on historical, sociological, and economic development literature. Mason demonstrates great mastery of the literature relating to conspicuous consumption and also uses the writings of psychologists, political scientists, and anthropologists in developing the kind of broad-gauged study that will be appreciated by most neoinstitutionalists.

Mason traces the development of conspicuous consumption through the evolution of the Western economy by using the typologies developed by David Riesman many years ago in The Lonely Crowd. Tradition- directed, inner-directed, and other-directed people play a significant role in explaining consumption patterns historically in Western society. In tradition-directed societies, emulatory consumption is confined largely to inherited elites; in inner-directed social orders, status emulation is a function of "earned" and "merited" purchasing power obtained in a system characterized by economic individualism; in other-directed social orders consumption owes much to emulatory patterns based on mass consumption.

Mason makes an important distinction between "horizontal" and "vertical" status emulation. Horizontal emulation occurs within groups when



798 Two Reviews

individuals try to enhance their own status through emulatory consumption. Vertical emulation involves moving from one's own status group to a "higher" one. For analytical purposes, it makes a significant difference whether one is trying to achieve higher status within one's own peer group or outside it. Much of the comparative sociological and historical material Mason uses shows the different role that conspicuous consumption played in the United States and England in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The British upper class during this period enjoyed security of prestige because of its ascriptive status and was less inclined to display its wealth conspicuously. Thus vertical emulation was of little consequence to it. On the other hand the American upper class consisted to a greater degree of nouveaux riche whose social position was less well-established and secure; naturally, it was more inclined to display its wealth ostenta- tiously. Vertical emulation was thus of much greater importance in the United States than England.

Among the most interesting of Mason's claims is that while there is reason to accept Veblen's contention that conspicuous consumption exists in "all social classes and at all social economic levels in more traditional societies, it does not appear to be particularly predominant amongst the very rich and in the blue-collar working class groups found in modern post-Veblen industrialized nations" (p. 137). Of equal significance is Mason's conclusion that the basic differences that exist between societies "are substantial enough to remove any hopes that it may be possible to develop a general theory of status-directed consumer behavior which would have universal application" (p. 137).

Mason also contends that "a wide range of utility goods are made more attractive and are more easily sold by being linked to claims of potential status gains" (p. 144). Also, "there is often a disguised element of conspicuous consumption in many utility purchases and . .. this element in- creases substantially in the consumer-oriented societies as status-linked consumption is more effectively exploited" (p. 144).

Some observers believe that the other-directed materialism of affluent societies will decline in the future and that ultimately ostentatious display inspired by the culture of mass advertising will diminish in capitalist societies. Mason shares this belief and in the age of Ronald Reagan one can only hope he is right.

RICK TILMAN University of Nevada, Las Vegas




Notes

1. Harvey Leibenstein, "Bandwagon, Snob, and Veblen Effects in the Theory of Consumers' Demand," Quarterly Journal of Economics 64 (May 1950): 183-207; Robert Steiner and Joseph Weiss, "Veblen Revised in the Light of Counter Snobbery," Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 9 (March 1951): 263-68; Panayiotis Afxentiou, "Bandwagon, Snob, and Veblen Effects in the Theory of Consumers' Demand Revisited," Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Economiche e Commerciali 25 (1978): 265-76.

2. John Brooks, Showing Oft in America: From Conspicuous Consumption to Parody Display (Boston: Little, Brown, 1979).



Documents

Two Reviews of Roger S. Mason: "Conspicuous Consumption: A Study of Exceptional Consumer Behavior"