Consumption and Identity
Are we what we consume? Yes.
Consumption: A Brief Introduction
In contemporary society, we buy goods to express who we are or whom we want to be, or whom we do not want to be. Part of the answer to this question resides in the history and philosophy behind the act of consumption itself and its rationale.
These notions about consumption are founded in the of origins of 17th-century consumerism, which emerged in the face of a growing middle class in a society intent on displaying their wealth through luxury good, including fashion, that they could afford as a sign of their social status and taste based on modern cultural values. The availability of mechanized, mass-produced goods in the 19th century and an increase in disposable incomes laid the foundations for modern forms of extended consumerism in terms of creating an unending (over) production alongside the evolution of mass-mediated channels to market and promote the supply and consumption of goods such as fashion and clothing.
Consumption refers to the search for, choice, acquisition, possession, disposal of goods and services. Both personal and social characteristics of people are understood through this process. This view of life suggests that meaning, accomplishment, and fulfillment are founded on the material goods that we own and acquire. Put simply — to have is to exist and people define themselves and others by their acquired possessions.
Despite the social context in which consumption occurs, it is located at the individual-society interface, with some scholars noting that identity drives consumption. The contradiction here is that individuals seek social acceptance in terms of their uniqueness, yet individually consume goods and services based on collectively shared aspirations.
Consumption/Materialism and Self
The premise that we are what we possess is not new (see James, 1890). For instance, Russell Belk (1988:139) echoed James sentiment by noting, “if we define possessions as the things we call ours,” then “we are the sum of our possessions”. Thus, Belk proposed the concept of extended self which refers to external objects and possessions, including persons, places, and group possessions such as clothing, as well as personal possessions such as body parts and vital organs.
Consumption habits are very much based on value systems. Materialism is a value based consumption pattern, in which people assign a high priority to material possessions and monetary gain. Some observed the confluence between the growing link between fashion consumption and materialism in post-industrial societies, a growing preoccupation with possessions is reflected in such consumption values as “shop till you drop” and “he who dies with the most toys wins” and the rise in credit card usage and consumer debt. Such approaches to life are the basis of materialism. This does not imply that every consumer is materialistic, as there is significant variance between individuals’ prioritization of and attachment to materialistic values…more materialistic values have been associated with using possessions for portraying and managing impressions.
According to Belk “besides control over objects, control by objects may also contribute to an item being viewed as part of self” (1988: 141). In other words, the very idea of consumption, imperative to all humans is part of one’s extended self or identity. So materialistic habits are linked with an understanding that individual possessions operate symbolically to signal an individual’s interests and identity.
Allport (1937) posited that the process of establishing one’s identity, and thereby gaining self-esteem, from infancy to mature adulthood happens by extending the self by continuously expanding the set of things that we own. In other words, our possessions define various dimensions of one’s self, true for materialists as well as non-materialists. George Simmel (1950: 322) echoed similar sentiments by noting, “material property is, so to speak, an extension of the ego, and any interference with our property is, for this reason, felt to be a violation of the person.” One scholar observed that people take great offense if their material appearance is criticized indicating the significance placed on possessions and how they are received.
Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton (1981) provided a more precise psychological explanation to why we assign importance to possessions, and their relationship to self by suggesting that we invest “psychic energy” in an object in which we have directed our effort, time, and attention. Therefore, this energy and its by-products are regarded as being part of one’s self because they have organically grown from within. Jean-Paul Sartre also commented on the importance of possessions in defining identity in his seminal work, Being and Nothingness, (Sartre, 1943) where he admitted, “that the only reason we want to have something is to enlarge our sense of self and that the only way we can know who we are is by observing what we have” (Belk, 1988: 146). Put differently, having and being are distinct, but inseparable as Sartre noted. In short, several scholars (Belk, 1985) and social philosophers (Marx, 1978) acknowledge that having possessions functions to create and to maintain a sense of self-definition and that having, doing, and being are all interrelated.
References (and More!)
Allport, G. W. (1937), Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Henry Holt.
Belk, R. W. (1985), Materialism: Trait aspects of living in the material world. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(3), 265–280.
Get Sri Manchiraju, Ph.D.’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Belk, R. W. (1984), Three scales to measure constructs related to materialism: Reliability, validity, and relationships to measures of happiness. Advances in Consumer Research, 11, 291–297. 9
Belk, R. W. (1988), Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 139–168.
Dittmar, H. (2008), Consumer society, identity, and well-being: The search for the ‘Good Life’and the ‘Body Perfect’. European monographs in social psychology series.
Dittmar, H. (1992), The social psychology of material possessions: To have is to be. Hemmel Hempstead, UK: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Douglas, M., & Isherwood, B. (2002), The world of goods. London: Routledge.
Hogg, M.K. & Mitchell, P.C.N. (1996). Identity, self, and consumption: A conceptual framework. Journal of Marketing Management, 12(7), 629–44.
Kleine III, R. E., Kleine, S. S., & Kernan, J. B. (1992), Mundane everyday consumption and the self: A conceptual orientation and prospects for consumer research. Advances in Consumer Research, 19(1), 411–415.
McCracken, G. (1986), Culture and consumption: A theoretical account of the structure and movement of the cultural meaning of consumer goods. Journal of consumer research, 13(1), 71–84. 11
Marx, K. (1978; original 1867), Capital: A critique of political economy (Vol.1; trans. Ben Fawkes). Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
Niederland, W. G., and Sholevar, B. (1981), The creative process — a psychoanalytic discussion. Arts in Psychotherapy, 8(1), 71–101.
Perlinager, E. (1959), Extension and structure of the self. Journal of Psychology, 47, 13–23.
Richins, M. L. (1987). Media, materialism, and human happiness. Advances in Consumer Research, 14.
Sartre, J. P. (1943). Being and nothingness: A phenomenological essay on ontology. New York: Philosophical Society. 12
Swagler, R. (1994), “Evolution and Applications of the Term Consumerism: Theme and Variations”. Journal of Consumer Affairs. 28 (2): 347–360.
Tuan, Yi-Fu. (1980). The significance of the artifact. Geographical Review, 70(4), 462–472.
Twitchell, J. B. (1999). Lead us into temptation: The triumph of American materialism. New York: Columbia University Press.
NOTE: This is an excerpt from a forthcoming book.
