as shelter but as an expression of identity and
self; likewise with food and clothing. Moreover,
and in agreement with many of those who have
worked recently on consumption issues in the
First World, I would argue that people – particu-
larly those located in the First World – increas-
ingly relate to the world as consumers of goods
and services, rather than as their producers, and
that for many it is consumption which provides
the primary set of motivations (Bauman, 1998).
This has profound implications for how we think
about societal reproduction. In short, it suggests
that rather than thinking about this in terms of
basic material need/s, we have to rework our
understanding of materiality through consumer
culture/s. Moreover, we need to take objectifica-
tion seriously, and to connect the general desire
for goods which is consumption to a desire for
specific sorts of goods – to the notion that our
relationship to goods is itself refracted through
the ways in which some things/goods matter
more than others (Miller, 1987; 1998b).
Such arguments, of course, also have implica-
tions for how we might think about issues of
inequality. Globally, the importance of the
relationship between First World consumption
patterns and Third World producers’ poverty has
long been recognized within analyses of uneven
development. Particularly apparent in the pro-
duction/consumption of food and clothing, this
unequal relation lies behind campaigns against
particular retailer/manufacturers’ practices (Nike
and Gap, for instance), consumer boycotts and
ethical consumption and/or fair trade agreements
(Klein, 2001). But what this relationship also
means is that inequality in its classic materialist
sense – that is, linked intrinsically to the social
relations of production – has been displaced
geographically; that the critical effects of First
World consumption patterns are located else-
where, distant and frequently masked; and that
inequalities themselves in these First World
societies are increasingly being understood
exclusively in relation to goods and their consump-
tion,that is, through consumer culture/s. This we
can see from various studies of the meaning of
poverty in the UK, most of which document the
importance of specific consumer items to house-
hold reproduction. Hence, whilst videos, TVs,
satellite dishes, mobile phones and children’s
toys might not constitute life-supporting goods
in the strict materialist sense, that they are talked
about as needs by the majority of people does
actually matter. Being without these things (and
frequently in the case of children, without spe-
cific toys and/or clothes), through force of cir-
cumstance/s rather than choice, is – in this
culture – exclusionary. It prevents people fromparticipating in society in ways which are
considered to be the norm and which are institu-
tionalized as normative, which in a consumer
society is read and talked about as inequality.
I make these points not just because my
personal conviction is that both societal reproduc-
tion and inequality have to be rethought through
consumption culture/s, but for a further set of
reasons. Because, notwithstanding the laudability
of the objectives of many consumer campaigns,
such analyses seem to me to be remarkably thin
and/or naive in terms of their understandings of
First World consumption cultures. Indeed, they
seem to proceed from the assumption that
improved consumer knowledge connected to a
(re)moralized pattern of exchange/trade will
suffice to effect radical change/s in patterns of
First World purchasing. What this manages to
overlook, however, is the immense complexity
of First World consumption. For example, the
imperatives behind much household provision-
ing on an everyday (as opposed to ‘gift’) basis
in the UK at least are about thrift, value (for
money) and saving. Consequently, to spend
more on basic food goods for ethical and/or
moral reasons is not just a choice which is only
possible on income grounds for the middle
classes but one which challenges some of the
primary meanings of consumption as practised
within this consumer culture. To take another
example, consider branded clothing. The brand
is critical for the ways in which it brings together
both identification and distinction; its meaning is
not simply about its purchase but about the wear-
ing and the specific socialities which this defines
in/out (Lury, 1996). Not to buy a particular
branded item then (kids’ trainers would be a
good instance) can (and does) have huge critical
effects – on friendship patterns, bullying, indivi-
dual social and psychological development and
so on. Whilst for adults, rather than condemning
out of hand the stereotype of the Levi’s/Nike-
clad, McDonald’s-eating, Coca-Cola-swigging
male or ‘his’ female counterpart chasing the
cheap brands in Matalan or at Cribb’s Causeway,
we need to think hard about the social securities
and certainties which these brands confer. We
need to appreciate that to enact social difference
through the consumption of goods is dependent
on particular identities and subjectivities, which
are middle class.
Having said something about how we might
rethink the material conditions of societal repro-
duction through consumption culture/s, I want to
say rather more first about how we might
approach analyses of inequality within consumer
culture/s and secondly about their connection to
key social categories.RECLAIMING ‘THE SOCIAL’ 513029-ch01.qxd 03-10-02 10:25 AM Page 51