A final thought is that perhaps it is significant that disposable items tend to be artifacts categorized as necessities rather than those that are associated with free activity. Clearly blowing a nose, shaving, or changing a diaper are not activities that work well to signify the negation of work. Leisure time is a residual, left over after subtracting time spent in wage work, domestic labor, and physical upkeep. It seems unlikely, therefore, that the rather mundane objects that comprise the set of disposable products can denote free activity as efectively as durable objects of discretionary consumption. Perhaps, then, the demand for disposable items is strongest for those goods that do not index free activity but rather are associated with tending to bodily functions and basic household maintenance. That might be why the market for disposable items, like that for rented goods, remains smaller than we might think should be the case under industrial capitalism. The size and shape of the market for disposable products is, however, broadly consistent with what we would expect to be the case if the commensuration theory was true. Time eficient, disposable consumption prevails, for the most part, in parts of the consumer market in which products are sold that do not denote free activity.
122
Time for Things