The Language of Consumption: Communal yet Competitive
"Thus emerge the asymmetries inherent in this pattern of collective consumption."
by Gilbert LokIn The World of Goods, Mary Douglas presents an anthropological view of consumption, where she postulates that the act of consumption sends signals to others about our choices and preferences, allowing the individual to "construct an intelligible universe with the goods he chooses" (43). This conversation of consumption between individuals results in the "joint production, with fellow consumers, of a universe of values" (45), bringing us to a common understanding of the world we live in. The mutuality and reciprocity in such a view of consumption is clearly evident, and consumption is depicted as a collectively beneficial activity, where individual choices give rise to societal order. We notice also a strong sense of egalitarianism, with individual consumers contributing their share toward the construction of a common social universe. Yet, lurking in the shadows of this seemingly classless system of consumption are traces of inequality and competition--shadows that create a certain tension in the view of consumption presented by Douglas. This essay therefore aims to show that while goods do serve as "communicators" of culture, they tell not merely of our preferences for different objects and activities, but also of the disparities in our status and influence in society.
According to Douglas, the sovereign consumption choices made by an individual now go beyond the person to meet a collective need for meaning. We are equal contributors to this process of establishing common signposts in our protean world. Beneath the seeming equality in such collective consumption, however, remains an underlying competitiveness. Douglas writes that "the individual needs compliant fellows if he is to succeed in changing the public categories, reducing their disorder and making the universe more intelligible" (45). Here we see that an individual must cause others to consent to view their shared universe from his or her perspective. This arrangement does eventuate in a common understanding between individuals, yet for this understanding to be achieved, one person's preferences have to dominate over those of others. Perhaps we are here beginning to notice that consumption is not as egalitarian as it seems.
Thus emerge the asymmetries inherent in this pattern of collective consumption, one that is initiated by a few individuals and willingly reciprocated by others. After all, "the individual needs compliant fellows" (45) in order for consumption to create a common societal landscape. There must be a leader, and there must be approving followers. Douglas herself acknowledges this, writing that:
[The individual's] project of creating intelligibility depends heavily on [other members of society]. He must ensure their attending his rituals and inviting him to theirs. By their freely given presence he obtains a judgment from them of the fitness of the choice he makes of consumer goods for celebrating particular occasions and a judgment on his own relative standing as a judge, as well as a judgment on the fitness of the occasion to be celebrated. (45)next:"Here we see the mutuality involved in collective consumption..."
[Page 1, 2]