Crouch 1

Consumer Consumption: Why Do We Want What We Don’t Need?

Victor Storm Crouch

SOC 4910

4 May 2015

Crouch 2

One can tell a lot about a person by just looking at them. In today’s society one is merely

judged by the way they look on the outside rather than what they are on the inside. Now I am

saying this not in regards to one’s race or ethnic background. I am saying this in respect to the

way one looks with their hair, clothes, shoes, jewelry, cars, house, and other materialistic wants

and needs. This has been an ongoing trend for years, but it seems that as time progresses the

issue has become more ubiquitous. Now one may ask, why does it even matter what someone

may purchase. Its significant because people like to show off whether or not they have obtained a

specific level of social class deeming them “acceptable” within our society. In this paper I am

going to explain how social closure and inequality affects each every one of us throughout our

daily lives. It doesn’t matter what social class one may come from. It impacts where we may

shop, where we attend college, how much we may spend on the experience, or the fact that we

have the product that symbolizes the elite status through its name and or symbolic icon.

The impact of inequality and social closure

This trend of a materialist society has divided one world, into a world of highbrows

(simply high culture) and lowbrows (low culture typically refers to the kinds of stereotypically

associated with the working class) or the top one percent and the poor (Grazian 2010: 134).

Along the spectrum is the middle class of society that is squeezed in between both the lower and

upper class. With more products and services being offered, the more ways the elite have at

staying on top. This occurs as the elite will increase the prices in their products or services at the

same time of excluding the working class from having access to reaching such prestigious levels

of leisure, learning, or products; known as a process called social closure. For example in Juliet

Schor’s film The Overspent American, one company will produce three identical pieces of

clothing, and sell them at three different businesses such as at, Polo Ralph Lauren, Target, and

Crouch 3

another selected business of their choice (2004). The higher end store will charge over thirty-five

dollars for a t-shirt while at Target the same identically made shirt will be sold for nine dollars.

Consequently at times we go out of our social class budget to purchase things that we sometimes

cannot afford, resulting in one to have compiled debt.

Understanding Inequality from the roots and its impact

Starting roughly in the 1980’s a major growth in inequality started to show its face in

American society (Schor 2002: 5). Rebecca blank claims that “a detailed analysis indicated that

changes in family composition and family size account for about fifteen percent of the rise in the

inequality happening within the borders of the United States (Blank 2011: 2). Initially, “all

measures of U.S economic inequality had risen, including in wages, income, and wealth (Blank

2011: 1) The biggest influential factor of them all was due to the increase in wage inequality

(Blank 2011: 2). For example, the top twenty percent increased their share of wealth, while the

bottom eighty percent started losing their wealth. Under those circumstances, one of the best

predictors of being a member of the elite today is whether your parents were in the elite (Khan

2012: 4). As these changes started to occur the top one percent started to really take advantage of

their new wealth by having a sense of luxury spending, making their social class highly visible

for others to see with ease. Schor explains in her film that people wanted more of the big three;

clothes to wear, cars to drive, and housing to live in (Schor 2004). As mentioned, housing trends

also had changed from hundreds of square foot to a couple thousands of square feet of spacing

(Schor 2002: 6). Houses were not becoming bigger because people were having more kids, they

were becoming bigger to show off ones “highbrow” status. As a result of this new social

consumptions, the bottom 80 percent of society was having a hard time trying to keep up with

the top 20 percent in their spending (Schor 2002: 8). The bottom 80 percent then started to

Crouch 4

decrease their savings and started to purchase more of this luxurious objects the top 20 percent

were able to acquire with their wealth. Subsequently, they ended up taking on record levels of

consumer debt in the 90’s, along with a surge in bankruptcies for their actions (Schor 2002: 8).

Too help offset the spending by the lower class, households started to work longer hours

and incorporate extra earners within the family. For example, the husband may have been the

bread winner of the house by bringing in the majority of the income. However in some cases this

was not enough to fulfill the “wants” of the family. In turn, wives and or children started to

chime into the family earnings wherever they could. Now this data is dating back in the 90’s and

the gap of inequality and social closure has continually gotten wider and more prominent

between the top one percent and the rest of the population. Over fifteen to twenty years later,

people are still working extensive hours to help reach a highbrow taste. At this instant, the best

prediction of a long-term trend in this situation is that it will continue until it something manages

to derail its tracks (Blank 2011: 158).

Social closure while one is shopping

As mentioned earlier, why would someone want to shop at a luxurious place over

somewhere more cost efficient for the same product (s). Juliet Schor suggests in her book The

Overspent American that, “where to shop is not always decided by the most convenience and

lowest prices” (1998: 11). In other words even though Wal-Mart maybe closer than going to

Dick’s Sporting Goods, people will go out of their way (depending on the distance) to go and get

a more luxurious pair of sliding shorts at the Dick’s Sporting Goods store. She begins to argue

that the middle and upper class individuals prefer to shop at the more luxurious stores because

doing so will help mark their social distances from the “lowbrows” of society (Williams 2006:

11). A prime example of this occurs when someone as mentioned earlier purchases a product at a

Crouch 5

higher end designer store over a lower end discount store, when both products are sometimes

made under the same roof. People who are considered “highbrows” or the elites are willing to

pay a premium for goods with a prestigious label on it as it symbolizes their “superior taste,

individuality and exclusivity” (Schor 1998: 147). But it wasn’t until the 70’s when brands were

starting to appear more on the outside of clothing and or products (Schor 2004).

Additionally, an individual may decide to enter a store based off of the impression the

store is giving off. In other words, “consumers make choices to enter one store and not the

another based in part on images projected in advertisements” (Williams 2006: 3). Executives of a

company will develop marketing plans, store designs, and labor policies to help bait people into

coming into their store (Williams 2006: 3). Of course the prestigious stores have more money

and resources available to make their store look “flashier,” which will end up bringing in more

consumers. When Stores end up going above and beyond for their looks, “they appeal to a

certain kind of customer, or at least to a certain kind of customer desire, such as the status to be a

“highbrow” or to be a “lowbrow” consumer (Williams 2006: 3).

Store worker social closure and inequality

More importantly while shopping; people tend to under appreciate the duties of the

salesclerk, cashier, and or stock boy that are working behind the scenes so to speak. Without

these people around to fulfill these tedious tasks, there would be no stores for consumers to shop

at. During William’s research she found that it is important not to limit yourself on hours when

applying for a job, if applicable. She also nonchalantly found out the hard way that employers

want flexible workers (Williams 2004: 472). To put it more bluntly, giant retailers will not cater

to the needs of the employees. Larger retailers are aiming to have a steady flow of entry level

Crouch 6

and more notably, replaceable workers. In the end, this helps keep labor costs down and saving

the employer a substantial amount of money in the long run. At the same time this forms social

closure between the working class employees and the corporate owner, as there is hardly any

room to move up in a pay level.

To put into perspective, an employee of one of these giant corporations in Illinois will be

paid $8.25 per hour (Minimum wage), and if you multiply that by a forty hour work week you

get $330 dollars. Then if you take $330 and multiply that by four you will receive $1,320 dollars

for that given month of work. This sounds like an impressive amount of money, hypothetically

maybe for someone that is turning sixteen and getting his or her driver’s license. The yearly

earned pay for an employee would then turn out to be about $15,840 dollars, and this number is

before taxes are taken out. Now this pay would not be able to support a fulltime working couple

at this pay, let alone support a single mom who was to think about living in an Oak Park, Illinois

apartment with her two children. The rent for a three bedroom apartment that I am currently

living in runs $1,575 without a parking spot per month. This adds up to $18,900 just in rent for

the year or $19,500 if you were to have a car. This forms a huge inequality gap as the employees

are putting in the extensive labor hours in maintaining the store, while the employers potentially

are sitting back racking up an upper class salary.

Education part of consumption

A lot like retail stores, colleges and universities will make their outer first impressions of

the facilities seem as if they are soaring above the rest. Comparable to stores, universities sculpt

the outside of their facilities to draw in a particular social class (Williams 2006: 3). At the same

time colleges and universities will brand the institutions name catching the eyes of new prospects

Crouch 7

seeking to further their education. For example, Duke University one of top prestigious schools

in the U.S changed its name to sound more appealing. Although there may have been some other

back story behind the change, it used to be called Trinity College of North Carolina. Colleges

and universities sometimes may not change their whole name of the institution but they will

change a word or two such as university, college, or institution etcetera. If they don’t want to go

to the extent of changing their name, they can certainly advertise their institution in various

ways; newspapers, magazines, billboards, commercials and so on, to grasp the consumers mind.

Yet again prestigious college and universities may seclude themselves away from the masses of

society. This happens quit often with both retail and higher education. As a result this forms

social closure from the “lowbrows” being able to become aware and gain access of these

institutes. For example, St. Paul’s School in New Hampshire is not widely known to the lower

class of society. Although this is a high school, post-secondary institutions try to do a similar

move of being incognito to some extent from the map. By doing this they are only bringing in

the upper class or the elites to the school, and at the same time of maintaining a prestigious level

of excellence. Later on in the article I will discuss another method in how higher education limits

itself from the masses.

Choosing what is best for you in higher education

Another form of social closure occurs in secondary education such as, college and

universities. Choosing to pursue a post-secondary education after high school may become

challenging for one to zero in on. Many factors come into play whether one will choose to pursue

higher education; will it initially be worth it, do they have what I am looking for, do they have

nice facilities, and the list may go on according to each individual’s preference but, the biggest

question of them all is, will it be affordable. As I briefly mentioned there is a step and thought

Crouch 8

process that goes in deciding whether or not to attend a college, university, or a trade school.

Susan Choy claims there are five steps to take before claiming a decision on higher education; by

all means have not changed much to this day (Choy 2001: 9). The first step is to decide whether

or not you really want to attend a post-secondary education and then what type; near, far, public,

private, religious affiliated etcetera (Choy 2001: 9). Secondly one must prepare themselves in

high school academically to be able to be considered by a college or university. In other words,

one needs to make sure to keep a respectable grade point average and not fail several classes.

Thirdly, colleges and university now require you to take a SAT or ACT test before entering

college. This occurs usually your junior or senior year of high school. Then comes the fun part of

applying to different college and universities, which come with filling out loads or paper work

and or typing of response essays to their questions they ask. Finally one must be accepted and

then make a decision based off of their financial aid package they are offered by the institution.

This last phase can be very stressful as one may decide to take the hit financially, just to obtain a

prestigious piece of paper at the end of his or her two to four years of furthered education.

College maintains inequality

Going to college is becoming increasingly more difficult for high school graduates each

year to take on financially. With that being said the students that are feeling this the most are the

ones coming from a working class background; not to say that upper-class students and families

are not feeling an impact as well Although college is becoming increasingly harder to get into

financially, it has become more broadly available in the American society (Berg 2010: 44). Yet

at the same time, “it has resulted in increased pressure on the upper class and or the elites to

separate their children from the rest of society by getting them into selective universities” (Berg

2010: 44). This is where the universities themselves become the “gatekeepers” in deciding who

Crouch 9

is allowed in, and who is turned away (Grazian 2010: 114). As competition increases, the

admission decisions become crucial in maintaining or improving the institutions reputation. In

some cases, private universities will only accept incoming freshmen if they have had some ties

with family graduating from the school. A prime example of this can be found when looking

deeper into Norte Dame’s Fighting Irish as, “their legacy for the institution relies on 21-24

percent of each freshmen class comes from children who parents were graduates of Norte Dame”

(Berg 2010: 48). Norte Dame’s policy has formed social closure by limiting who is able to attain

access into the institution. Likewise, “a study of nineteen ivy league universities and liberal arts

colleges found that only “Six percent of recruited athletes came from the poorest one-fourth of

American families, as opposed to twelve percent of non-athletes” ” (Berg 2010: 47; Middlebury

College 2002: 12). With this being said, if you are within the working class or “lowbrows” of the

societal spectrum, it is hard to acquire a scholarship to these prestigious institutions as you need

the skills that come from various resources over time. With these resources, you need to be able

to have money to put in them such as camps and clubs. In all, as mentioned earlier why would

one want to purchase (in this case attend) a more expensive post-secondary education when they

can go somewhere else for a fraction or the price and struggle of getting in.

How college became a debt trap

In the past two decades there have been very impactful changes to financial aid policies

which have impacted enrollment for college students. Ronald Reagan began after his election in

1980, to go on and state “that the investment in college aid was excessive, in turn leading to a

decline in aid from the government” (Berg 2010: 50). A couple of years down the road, George

H. W. Bush presidency once again altered the federal aid that was distributed to college students.

During his time in office, he further cut federal grants to low-income students. As you can see,

Crouch 10

this is forming a path of inequality and social closure that impacts the poor directly in a negative

way. Because the working-class are cut of federal grant funding for higher education, this places

a large amount of weight on their shoulders for them to be able to move up the social class

ladder. This was President Bush’s way of maintaining that the elite will stay elite and the poor

will stay poor. As time progressed, yet again another president was elected and started to make

changes to the federal student aid. However this time the impact wasn’t so negative towards the

lower and middle class and at the same time probably didn’t fancy the elites. During president

Bill Clinton’s time in office in the mid 90’s to early 2000’s, he brought up the new strategy of

having tax relief for the middle class families that have children attending a higher education

(Berg 2010:51). Although this was a step in the right direction, some argue that this was still not

enough to offset the damages that have been done by previous presidents. Ultimately, federal

college aid funding for low-income students dropped from $7.3 billion dollars in 1980-1981 to

roughly $1.4 billion dollars in 1990-1991 (Berg 2010: 51). In all over $5.9 billion dollars were

cut from funding lower class American citizens attending college in the United States.

It’s important to realize that because of these decreases in federal aid, students have to

come up with more money to pay for schooling. Not all incoming or current students are able to

pay right out of pocket, especially those coming from a working class or lowbrow household. It

is noted that, roughly 95 percent of all high school graduates take out student loans to help offset

the cost for going to college (Armstrong, Hamilton, and Mettler2015: 300). Graduates are

averaging $18,000 for a two year associates degree, and an excruciating $32,700 for a four year

bachelor’s degree (Armstrong, Hamilton, and Mettler 2015: 300). Of those graduates that take

out loans to pay for school nearly a quarter of them will default their loan payments in three

years. In other words they are permitted to hold off paying their loans for a certain period of

Crouch 11

time, at the cost of tacking on substantially more accumulating interest on those loans in the

meantime. Now the above numbers are just an average of all college graduates. Some graduates

may have a lower cost of schooling while at the same time; some may have double or triple the

amount due. For example, Norte Dame University was noted above for only allowing certain

new individuals in based on if their family members have attended the school or not. At the same

time their running tuition for the 2013-2014 academic year was a mind boggling $58,167

(CollegeCalc 2015). This initially forms social closure as those who are upper class are only

allowed in because they can afford the jaw dropping price tag for tuition. To take in account

without financial aid, a student with a four year bachelor’s degree would end up owing at that

price, $232,668 after her or she graduates (CollegeCalc 2015). By adding in financial aid (which

ran roughly about $24,632 for that academic year) one would still have to fork up $98,528

dollars either out of pocket or through loans once they had graduated (CollegeCalc 2015). This

was last year’s total bill for attendance but from reading the material so far, we can make a guess

that this years has increased by a certain percentage. As stated before not all college price tags

total that of Norte Dame’s. Consequently because of the aid decreases and loan increases, this

reduces the number of low income students from being able to attend a higher education

institution after graduating high school.

Conclusion/ Solutions to the problem

Now that I have brought to light how inequality and social closure occur within society

through shopping and pursuing a higher education, it is now time to look into how we can

change this phenomenon. First is to stop purchasing high end brands just for the logo that is

stamped on the outside of the product. Juliet Schor (1998) even goes to the extent of the only

way to fix the problem is to buy less (Williams 2004: 15). If the nation as a whole were to

Crouch 12

purchase less materialistic goods, it would lessen the competitiveness against one another, so to

speak, the endless race to the top.

Secondly is to reduce the inequality and or social closure from occurring for high school

graduates trying to attend college, there needs to be various steps taken. The first being academic

preparation being provided through schools during early ages (United States Congress 2002: 32).

Not all kids are capable of having what Shamus Khan claims as, “a dedicated but well supported

school, a safe, comfortable home and leisure time to cultivate the self (khan 2012: 4). If schools

can incorporate a safe, supportive, and at times leisure time for their students this will greatly

help the minds of the kids. One life motto used to be its not what you know, it’s who you know.

However in this case, we need to make sure high school students are attaining top notch grades.

In the long run this will open up more doors of opportunities if one is seeking a secondary

education.

Also when high school graduates are looking for a post-secondary education, they should

attend cheaper colleges and universities that won’t break the bank, at least that easily. In the end

when they go in for job interview, most employers are just looking for someone who has

acquired a degree by putting in the time and dedication needed for it. In other words, most won’t

even look in depth at where you went, just as long as you possess an associates or bachelor

degree from a credited institution. In some cases however, the employer will in fact look into

where you went to school, and what you actually studied in to make a decision. These companies

to some extent are the ones that are trying to weave out the “lowbrows” of society if they didn’t

have a prestigious degree from Harvard, Yale, Princeton or some other respected school. It’s

important to realize that earlier on in the article when discussing the book Inside Toyland, the

author of the book was a PH.D professor of Sociology specializing in gender and sexuality

Crouch 13

studies at the University of Texas. She decided to work at two different toy stores during her

sabbatical leave, which resulted in her writing the book. If you get the chance to read the book

she discusses how she was able to fit in with her coworkers around her during work hours. The

only people that knew she had a PH.D were the people who interviewed her for the position. In

the long run, what I am getting at is that when society breaks down the social closure barriers of

rankings, class, or whatever the case maybe; we are more interconnected than separate than one

may use to think.

To summarize the solutions, Cecile Andrew, ““Recommends turning away from activities

like shopping and career building, in which don’t give real satisfaction,” and to embrace

“creativity, community, and the celebration of daily life,” which bring “True joy and meaning””

(Andrew 2000: 485; Williams 2006: 15).

Crouch 14

References

Berg, Gary. 2010. Low-Income Students and the Perpetuation of Inequality: Higher Education in America. Ashgate Publishing Limited.

Blank, Rebecca. 2011. Changing Inequality. University of California Press.

Choy, Susan. 2001. “Students Whose Parents Did Not Go To College: Postsecondary access, Persistence, and Attainment.” National Center for Education Statistics.

Grazian, David. 2010. Mix it Up: Popular Culture, Mass Media, and Society. W.W. Norton, 2010.

Khan, Shamus. 2012. The New Elitists. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/08/opinion/sunday/the-new-elitists.html?_r=0 Web retrieved March 11, 2015.

Mettler, Suzanne, and Armstrong Elizabeth, and Hamilton Laura. 2015. “How the Politics of Higher Education Sabotaged the American DreamPaying for the Party: How College Maintains Inequality.” American Journal of Education, 121(2): 299-310

Middlebury College: Middlebury Ad Hoc Committee. 2002. Reclaiming the Game: College Sports and Education Values. Princeton University Press.

Schor, Juliet. 1998. The Overspent American: Why We Want What We Don’t Need. Harper Perennial.

Schor, Juliet. 2004. The Overspent American: Why We Want What We Don’t Need. Film

Schor, Juliet. 2002. Understanding the New Consumerism: Inequality, Emulation and the Erosion of Well-Being.

United States Congress. 2002. Empty Promises: The Myth of College Access in America. Report of the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance. Washington, DC: retrieved April 25, 2015 from http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/acsfa/emptypromises.pdf. pp. 1-51.

University of Norte Dame. 2015. “Tuition and cost to attend Norte Dame.” College Calc. Retrieved April 28, 2015 (http://www.collegecalc.org/colleges/indiana/university-of-

notre-dame/ ).

Williams, Christine. 2004. “Inequality in the Toy Store.” Qualitative Sociology. 27(4): 461-486.

Williams, Christine. 2006. Inside Toyland: Working, Shopping, and Social Inequality. University of California Press.