An institutional analysis of modern consumption patterns would, of course, look
An institutional analysis of modern consumption patterns would, of course, look first and foremost to a society’s institutions to explain these behaviors. Our tastes and preferences, in this view, are primarily the result, not of some abstract lightning calculation of marginal utilities per dollar, but rather of the common habits of thought shared among our peers, our family, and our society more generally. They do not emerge miraculously from each of our individual constitutions. Instead, they are the result of an institutional evolution, occurring in part by unplanned drift, and in part by intentional acts of problem solving, ceremonial observance, and persuasion.
In this view, we’re consuming the things we consume today largely because we learned that those things are appropriate to consume. And, importantly, the institutions that define what is and is not appropriate do not entirely reflect what is most conducive to nurturing individual well-being, social cooperation, and sustainable uses of technology. Rather, they will reflect in part the imbecile and anachronistic habits of thought inherited from our past.
Take for instance one of Veblen’s best-known concepts, conspicuous consumption: consuming goods not for their capacity to produce personal satisfaction (utility), but rather because they allow the consumer to demonstrate or enhance her prestige. Surely, a host of examples come to mind readily: designer clothing that serves no better as clothing than equivalents without the brand recognition; upscale dining establishments serving food that is no more nutritional than their more modest counterparts; sports cars that, while perhaps hypothetically capable of winning high-speed races, are no better at what they’ll actually be used for (driving around town and sitting in traffic) than an ordinary automobile. What do all of these have in common?
While one could argue that each of these examples is a good or service of a higher quality than their cheaper alternatives, most people would easily recognize that there is an element in each of allowing one to conspicuously consume–to ‘show off’ the fact that one has the money to make purchases that others simply could not afford. The question becomes, why would someone go out of their way to spend money on things that, in fact, don’t provide additional utility or value in use? And, as you might have guessed, answering this question requires an analysis of the institutions that guide our consumption decisions in modern society. The following breakout box points the way toward Veblen’s ultimate conclusion.
Sometimes referred to as the first feminist economist, Thorstein Veblen published his “Economic Theory of Woman’s Dress” in 1894, breaking down the characteristics of the apparel of his time that offered the consumer something more than simply protection from the elements. His three cardinal principles of women’s dress, each of which was “advertising the fiction that they live without any gainful occu