In addition, research in the 1950s by the sociologist William H. Whyte presents some evidence that a new mode of consumption was emerging in the 1950s, the point of which was precisely not to stand out from neighbors but rather to conform to the appropriate group standard. Whyte (1954) claimed, in his work on social life in the suburbs, to have discovered a tendency toward inconspicuous consumption. This style of consumption reflected a desire to fit in with prevailing consumption norms rather than one-upmanship. Supporting Whyte’s analysis, David Riesman and Howard Roseborough (1955) note the extent to which, by the mid-1950s, consumption was organized into “standard packages,” the contents of which varied by social class. According to Riesman and Roseborough, for most people consumption was about acquiring a set of material objects that conforms to the standard package appropriate to their class rather than making a symbolic claim to a status higher than others in their reference group. Of course, class standards for consumption were dynamic rather than fixed. As real income increased for a social stratum, new commodities would be added to its standard set. In line with this collective, class-organized picture of consumption, Chinoy notes that unions were seen as a means for gaining access for the entire group of workers to an improved set of consumer commodities. The objective was the collective advancement of all workers represented by the union. “Getting ahead,” then, could mean at least two diferent things. For individuals, it could mean acquiring the set of goods that comprises the standard package for their class. But it could also mean a whole group increasing its wages so that its standard package of wage goods could be upgraded. As an aside, one precondition for standard packages of consumption goods is that products themselves are standardized—a point I will explore at greater length in the next chapter.
An alternative interpretation of what it means to “get ahead,” already touched on in this chapter, is that it was understood in intergenerational terms, as the accumulation of capital that could then be used to support upward mobility in workers’ ofspring. There is evidence in these studies that to some degree this was the case. Chinoy’s informants, as do the Lynds’, tell him of their desire to not have their children enter the factory. Similarly, the autoworkers interviewed by Berger mention their ambitions for their children to attend college. But, as we have seen, aggregate spending and saving patterns in the United States do not lend strong support to that interpretation. If the motivation to “get ahead” was to ensure intergenerational mobility, then surely savings rates would be higher than they in fact were in the United States over the course of the twentieth century. Moreover, the ethos expressed by Chinoy’s workers was much more “work to spend” than “work to save.”
146
Time for Things