In the name of love

Whilst reflecting on the Margins of Consumption seminar day, in a supervisory meeting, Sue, Mike and I came to discuss aspects of Sue’s research on Love (and its effects on consumption habits). Mike and I identified parts of our own research that related to this, particularly in relation to the aspect of compromising our habits and preferences when we are ‘in love’ for the sake of our partner (or vice versa).

This got us thinking. We all have a sense of understanding about the romantic notion of love; love as an expression of something and of course the media view of falling in love, but what about (an understanding of) the practices of love – on a daily basis? The real reality of practices that we don’t necessarily reflect on and how different are these practices to the romanticised, idealised view of love and relationships?

The main practice that we identified is compromise; accommodating our behaviours and habits in a new relationship.

Mike highlighted how his study of videogame practices/play shows evidence of compromise in relation to how and when people (particularly men) change their game playing habits when they get married or move in with their partner in order to ‘fit in’ with their new lifestyle and ultimately make the relationship work. For example moving from the games console as a central feature of the living room, to playing on a handheld console so a partner can watch TV in the same room.

I’ve also noted moments of compromise in my data collection related to imaginative consumption. In making wedding plans a bride-to-be forfeited parts of the service and reception that she would have liked in order to make the groom (a shy public speaker) feel more comfortable and to prevent him resenting any part of the wedding. In another situation, a woman had decorated her lounge in a specific colour scheme because her husband came home with a 50inch, black, flat screen TV (that she hates). Her compromise was that by accepting the TV, she got to choose everything else for the room.

So, beyond the myth of romantic love, we can identify some of the practices of love – the ways in which people perform love in everyday life, showing their partner that they care, putting their partner’s needs and wants before their own. Switching from our favourite brand of coffee, reducing the amount of gameplay, or playing on a handheld console so that a partner can watch TV in the same room, forgoing our one chance to say the full wedding vows because the groom is shy and accepting ‘boys toys’ as a feature of the family home. All of these examples (of which these are just a few) are evidence of changes in behavioural and consumption habits, that may create a new way of being – all in the name of love.

And so to work on an ECCG collaborative paper, drawing from our various research projects to focus on different ways of compromising in relationships – compromise as a practice of love…
Anyone other examples of how we practice love?

The agency of things!

 

 

 

                                              The willard Hotel in D.C.

 

The ‘agency’ of things? 

 This is the Willard Hotel in Washington; if you look closely you can see it is on a famous street, and I walked past it when I was at a conference recently. Nothing remarkable, I know…but then I saw a placard on the wall (indeed there were at least six of them) and it changed both my view of, and reaction to this building. Lincoln stayed there just prior to his inauguration and Martin Luther king wrote, or at least finalised, his ‘I have a dream’ speech whilst staying here. (And, because I counted, I can tell you that it takes almost exactly 15 minutes to walk from the front door of this hotel to the very spot King stood -in front of the Lincoln memorial – to deliver that highly consequential speech).  A President with the name of the Ulysses spent much time in the bars of the hotel and, allegedly, it became the place to meet and influence him – hence the term lobbyist as it was in the hotel lobby that such advocacy often took place. (This is rather odd because Ulysses, the book, is the story of a single day – 16th June 1904 – the same day, some 105 years later, that I wrote this little think piece!!

 

 

Anyway to the point of this story….. My reaction to the plaques… suddenly I had to go inside, I wanted to spend time in the place; I wanted to see if I could ‘feel’, or in any other way, sense an atmosphere. And I ended up indulging in a VERY expensive drink so that I could spend time in the lobby.

So what? An example of ‘actor network theory’ being actualised? The power of imagination in our lives, leading, in this case, to a new, richer, consumption experience. And, a great example of how events coupled with the ‘gold dust’ of history is commodified. Do you have any more examples?

 

Here is the famous  lobby of the hotel

Taxing consumer acts: Connecting us to civic society?

 

Richard visiting his distant relative in Washington 09

 

Tax systems shape how we think about consumption

“Taxes class themselves readily according to the basis on which they rest. 1. Capital. 2. Income.        3. Consumption. ……………A government may select either of these bases for the establishment of its system of taxation, and so frame it as to reach the faculties of every member of the society, and to draw from him his equal proportion of the public contributions; and, if this be correctly obtained, it is the perfection of the function of taxation. ……

 ….But when once a government has assumed its basis, to select and tax special articles from either of the other classes, is double taxation. …….It is an aggrievance on the citizens who use these articles in exoneration of those who do not, contrary to the most sacred of the duties of a government, to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens.”

       Thomas Jefferson: Note to Destutt de Tracy’s “Political Economy,”

This view, expressed by one of the founders of the American constitution, leads to questions about the consequences, for the character of our culture, of focussing tax on income or consumption. Perhaps the tax regime sends subtle messages about what is most valued? Is there grater untapped potential for the taxation system to shape future consumption patterns? How can we get the act of taxpaying to be a celebration of civic society?

Looking forward to the new iPhone 3G.

I’ve just been reading Bauman’s relentlessly depressing The Individualized Society.  There is a short essay on instant gratification that deals in part with the way our ability to either locate ourselves in any grand narrative of progress, or to defer gratification for a later time (or life) is lost and replaced with individualised consumer experiences of history and progress (This seems a lot like Turner’s move from Limial ritual to liminoid by the way, so it’s a recurring concern for sociologists). The result is that it is now in the market where we may find the sorts of progress and meaning that are denied us elsewhere. Of course these are all ersatz.

The launch of a ‘eagerly awaited new’ iPhone 3GS would seem a good example of Bauman’s concern. See this report  on the queues to be the first to own one and which also tells us that: ‘Apple also addressed user desires, adding a 3-megapixel digital camera with autofocus’. Or this one. Or this one with a review by the BBC that seems to illustrate just how superficial most of the new features actually are (it even comes with an electronic compass). At some point these small product changes became news and became something to hope for, to get excited by, and to want to be ‘part of’. Those queuing to buy the first one’s no doubt feel that in a small way they are part of something historic. We can see this in the ‘unboxing’ videos posted to Youtube. They are making history instantly, with no more effort that a queue in the sunshine with likeminded Apple fans and the entry of a credit card pin.  This instant gratification is fleeting though. At best it will last until the next new Apple product, but in reality it’s likely to have worn off tomorrow (the unboxing might even have been the pinnacle). At that point the desiring consumer must seek another commodity, the promise of which will sustain a sense of purposeful future that is absent in trivialised labour and social lives.

Marketing and Public Policy

American Marketing Association – Conference on public policy and Marketing – Washington DC May 27-30 2009

Having presented a paper at the Advances in Consumer Research last October we were asked if we would consider adopting our paper to address the focus of this conference – specifically the implications of our paper for public policy and civic participation.

The conference was about 120 almost all American who do seem to have a very particular take on marketing as the ‘natural, discipline  …the underlying assumption seems to be that we are all born consumers – indeed in a session on regulation of behavioural targeting on line the notion of ‘protection’ of consumer rights was clearly considered more useful/worthy than thinking about rights as humans!

Mostly the dominance of positivist and psychology oriented experimentation, that was so apparent at the ACR, was also evident here. Perhaps not surprising given the conference was really all about how a marketing perspective can help frame government and other regulatory policy – so it was about marketing as a tool to do things to people….

The UK was represented by an American professor now working at Lancaster University and by ME!!! Mostly my voice was a lone ‘European’ take on the world – but there were some who took a more social constructivist perspective. One of these – Prof Julie Ozanne from VirginiaTech -was keen to invite other European scholars to get involved in a group she has formed – a sort of breakaway group within Consumer Culture Theory – that look at what they term  ‘transformative marketing’ – conference in 2 years on the East coast of the US is planned.

 

The paper I delivered seemed to go well – they mostly laughed in the right places…A copy of the slides I used are attached. Well actually I ended up using only some of the slides and instead told them a story about my witnessing a Chinese man buying an Obama t-shirt and the conversation between him and the American he bought it from that followed!!! The session I was part of was well attended, standing room only …I’d like to say that was because word of the English Guy was in town….more likely it was because one of the other presenters had won ‘best paper from a PhD student’ a fascinating talk about life on a trailer park and how consumption was used to distance many of those living in the park from labelling themselves as ‘trailer trash’.  The other papers in my session was about 1) the growing use of consumer spaces in which public/civic thinking  practices are being elicited in some large US cities – an example used was the redevelopment of a large urban space on the Hudson river in New York that has purposefully been designed to offer a mix of commercial outlets and free public spaces for performance, sport and debate and 2) an ethnographic study of ‘immigrants without documentation’ (for that read poor Mexican’s) and how they continue to be active consumers in a society where they have no official status – in this study in Oklahoma they presenter reported how for example hospitals and other public intuitions were considered too dangerous to visit (they feared that they may be stopped and handed to police and so deported) and so certain commercial organisations were relied on to provide many of their fundamental needs (backs of restaurants are spaces that are protected fir their owners and cleaned etc in return for  the restaurant providing the evenings leftover food…AND Wall Mart  pharmacy section being used as a surrogate doctors surgery for people too frightened to go to a public hospital).

I am bias – but the session I went to was considerably more interesting than many of the other sessions because, on reflection, they positioned marketing’s role as only a part and often an small or incidental/accidental part  in people’s lives ..rather than seeing it as central.

Anyway just thought I’d offer these brief thoughts to people as I went to the conference as part of cmc and on the budget that Darren holds for research activity.

 

RICHARD

The Accidental Citizen

The ‘Accidental’ Citizen: Some reflections

Richard Scullion
ECCG at Bournemouth University

An account of the relationship between citizen and consumer affords key difference to the two notions. They are considered at some levels in very ‘Jekyll and Hyde’ terms, one good the other bad, one worthy the other of dubious character, one suggestive of a progressive society the other of a break-down in civil society. But, just as and serious reading of Stevenson’ tale appreciates the layered allegory, so too should we recognise a dialectic that connects the two notions, and, I argue, allows us to understand some of the nuances of what it means to be a consumer and a citizen in our everyday lives.

Citizen and consumer: the black and white version
Citizenship is predominately considered about the legalistic relational arrangements between a subject and the state, Hinich and Minger (1997) Pattie and Seyd (2003), with a focus is on appropriate entitlements and responsibilities. The concept is considered to be something beyond individual self-determination because, as Turner (2001) makes clear, the benefits of citizenship result largely through the collective development of a civil society. Decision-making involves due consideration to justice, equality and the widest possible consequences whilst individual agency is manifest through having a voice. Seen in direct opposition, the consumer is considered a free choice maker in the market, Slater (1997) emphasis is on rights and limited obligations, agency is realised through exit strategies and choice is based on individual preference. Lasch (1978) argues the two positions develop different cultural values and norms. This position of contrast is important because as the established position in the literature, Hay (2002), it has served to restrict our thinking about how the two may actually coalesce in the everyday lives of individuals.

Consumer as the preferred mode of operating
More recently the dominance of consumption has emerged with Cohen (2003) arguing that people are now “bringing market expectations to their appraisals of the Government itself – judging it by the personal benefits they, as segmented purchasers, judge consumer offerings” (pp344). The market offers a non-discriminatory veneer, (Edwards 2000), and has come to be a major legitimising force, (Kozinets 2001). Individual agency is frequently and perhaps most tellingly, demonstrated to each other through the autonomous choices we face and make, as evidenced in our consumer culture. Our notion of free choice is well matched to market environments, for example, very little consumer choice is perceived as obligatory. Sovereignty as consumer is manifest in a sense of continually renewed power and importance each time we make a decision. Meaningful engagement is found in spaces where a sense of proficiency in the discourse exists, in markets rather than political sites.

Combining notions of citizen and consumer
I adopt what might be called a hybrid position where I suggest we look beyond difference to understand the relationship between citizen and consumer. Several ways in which consumer and citizen may coalesce have been articulated in Clarke (2004); each alters the traditional view of citizenship and of consumption. Citizen as consumer where what one has come to understand and expect as a private consumer ought to be extended to all life spheres. Consumers as multiple-identity holders, including that of citizen, indicate that we can choose when and where to act as a citizen thus changing in quite fundamental ways what the notion means. Miles agrees with this combined conceptualisation by arguing that “consumerism offers apparently democratic value structures” (1998 pp10). Here the apparent freedom through our choice- making is equated to democratic values. Being a citizen is now equated with being a socially-aware responsible consumer who “thinks ahead and tempers her decisions by social awareness…..and who must occasionally be prepared to sacrifice personal pleasure to communal well-being” (Gabriel and Lang 1995 p175). Thus we start to witness a merging of consumer literacy with political literacy. Connections between consumer choices and their potential wider social consequences are now part of the prevailing discourse. There are many examples of political consumption ranging from personally-oriented decisions not to be involved in certain practices (e.g. the eating of meat) through to collectively-oriented acts that attempt to change other actors’ beliefs and practices (e.g. protesting outside livestock establishments), see Follesdal (2004). Consumption then, is a political site because it is where preference can be and frequently is expressed. As Arnold and Thompson (2005) argue, there is much evidence pointing to theatres of consumption as emancipation spaces where the consumer makes a critical contribution to what happens.

A merging of our consumer and citizen roles in our everyday experiences
The market will treat us in almost anyway we wish so long as we engage in it. If we want to politicise our consumption acts so be it and just because most of the potential political quality remains dormant, it remains. Both the consumer and brand owner know that they can activate it and at times it is revealed. For example brands come to represent icons of capitalism, whilst groups who seek societal change attack and subvert the advertising messages of consumer brands that have come to represent a certain lifestyle. Sections of society come to be defined by their consumption patterns e.g. the Pink Pound and DINK’s. At the same time, brands increasingly use politicised market positioning – for example, eco labelling, philanthropic acts, and ethical production processes. Politicised agency is thus inadvertently offered to consumers and producers as a result of the contemporary importance afforded to brands. There is added civic qualities to consumer choice with their plethora of calls to demonstrate our ethical, green, wise and moral stance through what and how we consume. It is increasingly hard not to face political choices as we make our way down the supermarkets aisles or drive onto the petrol forecourt to fill up. This adds another layer to our consumer sovereignty…. allowing us to feel that we are good citizens through being wise consumers. Authentic brand positioning, exposes the consumer to its corporate roots, and reveals its history. We are not just buying the product but also its ethos, its processes, its stance in the world, thus affording consumption yet more of a political quality. This desire for authenticity accidentally invites consumers to take on the role of social and ethical critic too. Our expanded knowledge of brands and their corporate position on, for example, equal rights for gay and lesbian employees, or their involvement in ‘sweat-shop’ practices, and our ability to differentiate market offerings based on such political positions, mean our consumer choices take on a citizenly quality. Zwick et al (2007) demonstrate that participation in the stock market can generate a ‘politicisation’ of investors. Their online buying and selling of personal shares becomes the site of “reflexive, socially responsible and moral consumer behaviour” (pp181). In my main articles I draw on many examples from everyday mediated experiences, not only serve to support the concept of the Accidental Citizen, a crucial outcome of this fusing of consumer and citizen is that we increasingly see and experience the connections – the politics of being a consumer.

The emergence of the ‘Accidental Citizen’
A ‘politics-lite – rooted in being a consumer-citizen, rather than politics-heavy – rooted in being a citizen-consumer characterises much of contemporary culture. A political gesture in the market is attractive, as it is quick, easy, accessible, and offers a visible output. And consumption acts can connect us to politics without requiring us to adopt a traditional citizenly role, (Eliosoph 1998). Thus, from buying healthy options for your child’s lunch, the lack of a sports field at their school may emerge as salient and you become involved in a longer-term politicised action. Rather than denying citizenship, being a consumer can offer outlets where actions and decisions take on civic qualities and can lead us to consider broader public issues, in essence the ‘Accidental Citizen’. Many politicised consumer acts require a high degree of co-ordination and cooperation; hence in consumption there is often a requirement for a bonding and recognition of mutuality of benefit in order to succeed – in other words a civic-ness. The market as a site for political discourse and action is not new, what is different is the shift in the perceived location of power from public to market sphere and our awareness of this change contributes to the blurring of what it means to be a citizen and to be a consumer in contemporary society. A vital question the full articles address is whether the ‘Accidental Citizen’ a catalyst for politicised agency? To help me answer this I use social theories that demonstrate how the idea of self-identity is increasingly one rooted in consumption, (Bauman 2000, Giddens 1998, Beck 2002).

For a fuller development of these arguments see
Scullion, R. (2008) The Impact of the Market on the Character of Citizenship, and the Consequences of this for Political Engagement. In Lilleker, D. and Scullion, R (eds) (2008) Voters or consumers: Imagining the contemporary electorate. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Scullion, R. (forthcoming) The emergence of the ‘Accidental Citizen’: Implications for Political Marketing. Journal of Political Marketing.

Reflecting on the Margins of Marketing seminar

In my short summary of the day I noted that we (the academics that make up the informal group that is ECCG) might be well placed to work at the margins of consumer research because we are in fact very much at the margins of the academy. We work in a new university that has only recently declared any interest in research (and is yet to follow up its stated aims with the sorts of working practices that colleagues at more established institutions enjoy). We also work in a media school and in a group that is highly interdisciplinary. In many ways we simply haven’t yet learnt to practice consumer research in ‘normal’ ways. We are poor at the game. Some of us don’t really ‘get’ the fuss about the JCR, for example. Others don’t really aim to ‘be someone’ in consumer research. I don’t think many of us have a 3-year publishing plan either. And we don’t really know how to maximise our RAE results (or care to find out, even though we did do better than expected). We spend little time and effort looking for commercial applications for our work either.  Perhaps we are poor researchers? Or perhaps we simply enjoy researching the things that interest us, and that stand out as worth further investigation?  We do this using the methods that seem ‘right’ to us (or just fun to us) rather than those that are preferred by top journals.

As I thought about these things after the Margins of Marketing seminar I think I felt more strongly that research should be an aesthetic experience – that we are better off for our rather amateurish approaches.  We held the session because we wanted to. We wanted to discuss our ideas and hear what others had to say. We didn’t worry about a paper on a CV, or about research profiles and outcomes.  We just wanted a space to enjoy academic discussion. And I think that is what we got. This should enrich both our research and our teaching.

A few things stand out to me from the day though. These are fragments that stick in my mind but that I can’t easily locate to one presentation or discussion. I suspect for others different themes will have emerged and if I were to write this tomorrow I might think of something different.

Firstly, I think one significant aspect of the margins of consumer culture (and even of emerging consumer cultures) is that the quick jump to see life as consumption is an error. This point was made by several people on the day, I think. For me Fromm’s humanism came to mind. I wonder if consumer research too quickly presents a ‘having’ frame of reference (for researcher as well as participant) that results in the over-emphasis of consumption in everyday life. So maybe everyday practices are a better focus and it is from these that we may start to see commodities and services as both props and providers of scripts that people may use to enact life. Here of course we may also see resistance in the unusual and unexpected ways in which individuals use market offerings to manage relationships, work, family life, citizenship, etc.  And we may also see technology as a particular focus for new practices to emerge.

Secondly I though about escape and the possibility of consumption as a source of boredom for individuals.  On an intellectual level we critique and review and even complain about consumer cultures, but for many who are unfamiliar with Marxist and/or critical theory and/or who are unaware of the insidious ways in which the market has come to dominate so many aspects of life (and often on the basis of lies and deceit it seems) the market may be simply boring. What do such people imagine then? What are their ‘good lives’ made of if not the trappings of a consumer society? If we are to extend the commentary on emerging consumer cultures to normative calls for other forms of cultures, or even better forms of culture, we should know more about the practices of those ‘spoilsports’ that simply refuse to play consumption games, as well as the ‘cheats’ who refuse to play by the rules..

Finally for now I wondered more about ‘truth’. Enquiry into the history of consumption reveals lies, but actually I wonder if all we really have are competing stories that are either relevant to us, challenging to our understanding of reality, or (most commonly) old and dull and familiar. Metaphors and phenomenologies are  two form of story in consumer research that can be enjoyed, but the stories of research projects are just as interesting. These stories seem to get lost in formal presentation but were emphasised during the seminar (especially in the back stage, unrecorded chat). What’s going on there? Books and especially journals are formalising the experience of research to the point where we have lost the complexity and nuance of our own practices perhaps, and in those circumstances how can we hope to present the messy complexity of the people we research? And if we can’t tell interesting stories about individuals who often consume but also frequently don’t and don’t care to, where will new ideas about consumption come from? I don’t mean new theories – we already seem to have too many of those and reach for them to often – I mean new ideas about how to live satisfying lives either within, outside, or on the margins of markets.

Margins of Marketing Seminar

On the 12th June 2009 The ECCG held a seminar where we discussed the margins of marketing. I’m going to try to capture some of the discussion here, but I’ve included recordings too.  The academics in ECCG wanted to hold an event that was not like the usual academic conference. We didn’t want long, finished papers and we didn’t want formal presentation. We wanted participants to share thoughts and ideas and to discuss them at length. We split the day into 4 broad themes (but really this turned out to be a rather arbitrary and messy split): Spaces, Practices, Theories, and Methods.  You can listen to Richard’s introduction here :

Introduction (Richard Scullion)

Session 1: Spaces

Becky Jenkins started the day with a review of the consumer imagination as an important but insufficiently explored ’space’.  Yet we can see many examples of such spaces becoming manifest in the market (wish lists on Amazon, nostalgic products, and of course ads as scripts for fantasies).  Becky observes however that in Consumer Research the explicit references to the imagination tend to focus on positive, future-orientated ‘desire’. However the imagination may have a temporal dimension that goes from future daydreams to past nostalgia. It may also be positive or negative (as is worry, fear or regret) and fleeting, or highly elaborated. This seems worth further consideration as a way of think about consumption that compliments material practices.  Becky recorded her talk after the event, because  the recording failed on the day.

Janice Denegri-Knott then considered digital virtual spaces. The number and range of these are growing (are there really over 200 now?) and Janice provided a quick tour of some of the most popular sites. These spaces (Second Life, WoW, Habbo, etc) are curious because they seem to sustain consumption practice that are not materially real, but also not only in the imagination. they also seem to serve different purposes for individuals, but what? Why do a growing number of consumers (especially children) satisfy a desire to buy in virtual space rather than through the material marketplace? And what are the implication of such spaces that make the consumer a ‘desiring machine’.

Darren Lilleker also noted that the role of technology is facilitating new cultures. Darren has observed that politicians now engage with citizens through new media. This creates new forms of engagement  and possibly new relationships between politicians and voters. For example, we see Twitter feeds that allow voters to engage not only with their local MP, but also with MPs who have similar interests. Is this a new form of political engagement that may even change the structure of politics? If so this must be desirable given the current political crisis such developments seem woth further investigation. But perhaps what we also see here is consumer practices and citizen practices merge in new technology products.

Finally Daragh O’Reilly discussed the nature of groupness and noted problems with the idea that individuals could or even should see groupness in the commodities that they buy and own. Theory here is weak and even misleading. Here perhaps we see the imperialism of marketing as an idea that makes easy claims over parts of human life that it cannot easily (or even possibly) contribute to. This is also a reminder that the focus of our studies is people who sometimes consume rather than ‘consumers’. So are there better models of groupness than the one’s consumer researchers to easily reach for.

[This first session was not recorded]

Session 2: Practices

Antony Beckett started this session with a review of the idea of practices as the focus of consumer research. Consumption occurs as a result of an indiviual’s involvement with certain practices. For example, Antony described how the overlapping practices of parenthood and driving may lead to the purchase of an in-car DVD player.  But also Antony notes how we don’t always reflect on consumption because most practices are subconscious – they are performed without reflection. Yet their are moments – key moments – when we do reflect on our practices and that they mean. In consumer research we might consider these moments of reflection in more detail, and we might note the ways in which marketing introduces the (normal) ideas that we use to reflect on the practices that we engage in.  Antony’s talk is here: Antony Beckett 

Lukman Aroean considered his son’s videogame practices. There is a tension here. On the one hand Lukman expressed concern at cultures that use technologies in preference to face-to-face communication and wondered why this might be so. But on the other hand he noted that his son shared videogames with this friends, not just the games themselves, but also knowledge of the game. This consumer culture brings people together and allows for the experience of expertise. So this is a consumer culture that does not emphasize having, but that encourages sharing. The tension then is ensuring that the complexity of a practice is ‘discovered’ before we move to critique it.  

Sue Eccles also noted that consumption may take place within relationship and her interest is that time in a relationship when some form of ‘permanent’ bond seems to form. Sue is interested in the ways in which love leads to consumption practices. Firstly she notes that being in love may lead to significant changes in practices as partners learn to accommodate each others’ tastes and habits. This may be a conscious and reflected upon change.  However there is also a dark side to relationships were distain for a partner may be demonstrated through consumption of goods that are known to irritate them.  One way to see this is that  both ‘good’ and ‘bad’ relationships can be ‘performed through material consumption. 

The discussion for this session can be downloaded here: Discussion 

Session 3: Theories

Ai-Ling started this session by discussing the role of the body in consumer research – or rather the curious lack of an emphasis on the body. In Ai-ling’s view there is too much emphasis on the mind in research – we see this in particular in the overly rationalised discourses of consumer choice and Ai-Ling links this to the dominance of Cartesian thinking. For Ai-Ling we need to have theories of consumption that re-instate the importance of the body. You can listen to her presentation here: Ai-Ling 

Heather Savigny’s concerns were the roles of market ideology and the normalising of marketing in political discourse. So we see policy overly determined by market structures and performance. This may mean that there is a problem with an indiviualised society that seems to have lost a sense of moral behaviour and instead become content with market practices as stand in. Such marketised politics disengage the citizen (and reproduce the consumer everywhere) and Heather asks how, in such circumstance, we may move to (or return to) a collective society. 

Kerry Howell considered Phenomenology and post-positivism. Kerry is concerned about the unreflective ways in which marketing theory is reproduced in research and calls for more consideration of underlying philosophical assumptions. Kerry notes that research often makes claims of some philosophical underpinning, but with little evidence that such philosophy has been consulted or fully understood. Here we should also return at times to questions about what we are trying to do in research (other than simply get published) and then consider what we know about the methods that may be used to achieve our aims.  

For my presentation I discussed the playfulness of consumer behaviours and of consumer research. I asked about a ‘playful turn’ in research and considered the value of taking consumer play and games more seriously as a way to understand the complexity and apparently agonistic nature of consumer cultures. I noted play as ‘escape’ or ‘otherness’ and the tendency for consumer practices to form that both confirm and reject rules (games and free-play). The result is a perpetual restlessness in consumption that needs to be conceptualised. You can download the presentation here: Mike Molesworth  

You can download the discussion for this session here: Discussion 

Session 4: Methods 

The first presentation in this session was given by Janine Dermody. Janine noted her own (and the group’s) interdisciplinary backgrounds as a context for developing research at the margins of marketing and consumer research. But she asked that we reflect on our ability to create knowledge and that we consider the possibility of some Darwinian ‘natural selection’ in consumer research. Such reflection might open up to issues of research outlets and audiences and of the ways in which we encourage and support new researchers. 

Lizzie Nixon then considered resistance to consumerism in everyday practices. Lizzie notes that this is an under-researched area but that it may be significant in light of renewed interest in simple living and also as a result of persistent frustration with the quality of life afforded by consumer cultures. One issue here is that some, or even many people are simply disinterested in consumption (rather than active resistors of it) and there is also therefore a possibility that researchers may benefit from being disinterested in consumption, but more interested in the people they research.  Another way of putting this is to ask about the degree to which consumer research is performed through the analysis of data collected on everyday life. 

Mark Tadajewski considered marketing history as a way to understand the myths, stories and even lies that stand in for truth about the development of marketing as a practice. In particular Mark notes the possibility of historical documents (in the case of his recent work this includes documents from the FBI) that call into question many of the claims made by the fathers of marketing  that it is a legitimate business practice. Could it be that we have even been mislead about the original consumer focus at the heart of successful marketing organisations? This is especially problematic if these myths form the basis of much research practice today.

In the final presentation Richard Scullion reflected on the messiness of research that stands in contrast to its ordered presentation in journals and books. He also questions the simple dualisms that can be created to contrast the consumer with other facets of expereince (such as citizenship). And he considered the ways in which reflection on consumption can come from literature (and in fact from anywhere) rather than through the apparently rigorous process of research (which might not exist outside the methods sections of papers). So Richard asks for a ‘dappled light’ in research where the researcher thinks about and reflects on what is represented, what is highlighted, and especially what is missing. 

the discussion for the final session can be found here: Discussion