{"resolved":true,"match_type":"uuid","source_type":"original_book","book_id":"10f0f318-a2eb-4ea9-8798-d4fb0304f8c3","title":"Time for Things Labor, Leisure, and the Rise of Mass Consumption","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9780674250529","requested_by":"printed_page","book":{"source_type":"original_book","book_id":"10f0f318-a2eb-4ea9-8798-d4fb0304f8c3","id":"10f0f318-a2eb-4ea9-8798-d4fb0304f8c3","uuid":"10f0f318-a2eb-4ea9-8798-d4fb0304f8c3","title":"Time for Things Labor, Leisure, and the Rise of Mass Consumption","normalized_title":"timeforthingslaborleisureandtheriseofmassconsumption","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9780674250529","isbns":["9780674250529","9780674250536","9780674979512"],"parsed":true,"ai_readable":true,"document_type":"book","page_count":355,"navigation_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/10f0f318-a2eb-4ea9-8798-d4fb0304f8c3","title_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/title/Time%20for%20Things%20Labor%2C%20Leisure%2C%20and%20the%20Rise%20of%20Mass%20Consumption","fixed_page_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/10f0f318-a2eb-4ea9-8798-d4fb0304f8c3/page/{printed_page}","path_api_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/book/10f0f318-a2eb-4ea9-8798-d4fb0304f8c3/page/{printed_page}","read_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/read/10f0f318-a2eb-4ea9-8798-d4fb0304f8c3","page_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/10f0f318-a2eb-4ea9-8798-d4fb0304f8c3/page","search_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/10f0f318-a2eb-4ea9-8798-d4fb0304f8c3/search"},"page":{"printed_page":37,"pdf_page":45,"physical_index":45,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"38b38a45511a6009c1a24d4d4697641242968ed583b7ab136a53d5f75f6a4c2d"},"chapter":"FOR","content":"There is certainly something compelling about this argument. The status value of a good depends on its distribution across a population. As access to a given good becomes less exclusive, the status associated with it declines (Hirsch 1976).48 Therefore, as economic growth yields greater access to goods, those higher up the hierarchy will seek to defend themselves from the encroachment of those below by “upgrading” their product set in order to symbolically reestablish social distance from them. This makes commodities into weapons in a kind of status symbol arms race, and the result of this is a very rapid turnover of products. The status interpretation of consumption also suggests an explanation for why, after basic needs have been met, higher income (and further spending) does not produce increasing satisfaction— the so-called hedonic treadmill efect (Ofer 2006). If increased spending is about maintaining relative status position, then it is not surprising that it fails to produce increasing happiness.\n\nHowever, the status competition approach to consumption ultimately runs into the same dificulty as the utility maximizing account. For establishing social distinctions by display of commodities is a certain kind of use made of commodity objects, and, as such, requires some investment of time. Conspicuous consumption must, by definition, be noticeable to have the desired efect, and display entails time spent in public, showing wares to signal status. As time available to display each status object contracts, the accumulation of more status goods yields diminishing marginal returns, and in response, we would expect people either to shift their preferences from further commodity accumulation to more free time (in which accumulated goods can be displayed) or else increased savings. To the degree that this does not happen, the puzzle remains.\n\nMoreover, mass consumption meant that the power of goods to signal status diferences probably declined, just because they became so much more commonplace. As goods increasingly come within reach of the masses, they become less efective as markers of social distinctions.49 If the advent of mass consumption corresponded to a decrease in the capacity of things to index status, it seems unlikely that status competition can explain mass consumption. Some support for the declining significance of status-driven consumption with mass consumption is provided by the research of historian Richard Pollay (1985) on advertising content in the middle decades of the twentieth century (which I discuss in more detail in Chapter 7). While Pollay found that status is sometimes adduced in order to advertise the benefits of owning certain categories of consumer durable—especially high-end goods such, as luxury vehicles—most advertisements for products focus on their functional properties. If making, or defending against, invidious distinctions were foremost in the mind of consumers, then surely mid-century marketers would have cottoned on to that and incorporated, to a greater extent than Pollay’s evidence suggests was the case, the status associations of products in their advertising campaigns. So the most common forms of mass consumption cannot easily be explained by status dynamics.\n\nThe Puzzle\n\n37","previous_page":36,"next_page":38}