toward a general theory of luxury advancing from workbench definitions and
TRANSCRIPT
Seediscussions,stats,andauthorprofilesforthispublicationat:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305633736
Towardageneraltheoryofluxury:Advancingfromworkbenchdefinitionsandtheoreticaltransformations
Article·August2016
DOI:10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.07.001
CITATIONS
0
READS
126
4authors,including:
Someoftheauthorsofthispublicationarealsoworkingontheserelatedprojects:
Theimpactofcontextualcuesonresponserate,conversionrate,anddestinationpreference
intravelsurveysViewproject
HanneleKauppinen-Räisänen
UniversityofVaasa
35PUBLICATIONS139CITATIONS
SEEPROFILE
ArchG.Woodside
BostonCollege,USA
283PUBLICATIONS5,434CITATIONS
SEEPROFILE
Allin-textreferencesunderlinedinbluearelinkedtopublicationsonResearchGate,
lettingyouaccessandreadthemimmediately.
Availablefrom:ArchG.Woodside
Retrievedon:08November2016
Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
JBR-09206; No of Pages 7
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Business Research
Toward a general theory of luxury: Advancing from workbench definitions andtheoretical transformations
Hélène Cristini a,⁎, Hannele Kauppinen-Räisänen a,b,⁎⁎, Mireille Barthod-Prothade c, Arch Woodside d
a International University of Monaco, Groupe INSEEC, Monacob University of Vaasa, Finlandc INSEEC Alpes Savoie, Groupe INSEEC, 12 Avenue du Lac d'Annecy, Savoie Technolac, 73370 Le Bourget du Lac, Franced INSEEC Research Center, International University of Monaco, Groupe INSEEC, 2 Avenue Albert II, 98000 Monaco, Monaco
⁎ Correspondence to: H. Cristini, International UniversiAvenue Albert II, 98000 Monaco, Monaco.⁎⁎ Correspondence to: H. Kauppinen-Räisänen, Faculty oof Marketing, University of Vaasa, Wolffintie 34, FI-65200
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (H. Cristini),[email protected] (H. Kauppinen-Räisän(M. Barthod-Prothade), [email protected] (A. W
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.07.0010148-2963/© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article as: Cristini, H., et atransformations, Journal of Business Research
a b s t r a c t
a r t i c l e i n f oArticle history:Received 1 May 2016Received in revised form 1 July 2016Accepted 1 July 2016Available online xxxx
This study focuses on luxury, an intrinsic part of civilized society that historically reveals insights regarding thesocietal norms and mores. The perception of luxury is in a continuing state of flux due to the changing ofmany aspects of the economic market. This study takes a critical view on the transformations of luxury throughthe ages, examining the perception of luxury through historical, philosophical, and anthropological lenses.Whilethe current views frequently equate luxury with the desire for the superfluous, driven by luxury brands andendorsed by celebrities, luxury has not always had that role in society. The study here contributes to the bodyof knowledge by providing a frame for understanding the transformation of luxury from being-to-having andowning, and to consumers' search for meaningfulness again via shifting from having-to-being and fromowning-to-experiencing.
© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords:AnthropologyHistoryLuxuryLuxury transformationMeaningPhilosophy
1. Introduction
Luxury is an enduring and intrinsic part of the society, and thereforenot a new phenomenon. Still, luxury is a representational characteristicof today's consumption society; luxury in particular features the savvyconsumers, who increasingly desire luxury (Chandon, Laurent, &Valette-Florence, 2016). One aspect of today's luxury is that luxurydesire is shared among consumers across various countries (Shukla,Banerjee, & Singh, 2016). The globalization of luxurymeans that luxuryis becoming increasingly prevalent among new consumers in newmarkets, thereby being referred to as the new luxury (e.g. Belk, 1999;Silverstein & Fiske, 2005; Kapferer & Laurent, 2016; Liu, Perry, Moore,&Warnaby, 2016). In contrast to the traditional characteristics definingluxury, the new luxury implies that luxury is no longer too exclusive orunique, and it is neither too unreachable nor inaccessible any longer(Silverstein & Fiske, 2005). Hence, the democratization of luxury resultedin mass luxury, which is very much attached to brands, and these brandshave extended themselves to affordable offerings, while luxury attaches
ty of Monaco, Groupe INSEEC, 2
f Business Studies, DepartmentVaasa, Finland.
en), [email protected]).
l., Toward a general theory(2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.
to new product groups. Through media innovations, interventions andexpansions, media-driven is one aspect of luxury today.
So while many aspects of luxury are transformative (Donzé &Fujioka, 2015; Llamas & Thomsen, 2016), so are themeanings of luxury.Previously luxury was about being, sharing and sensing which as thecore values of luxury represented the meaningfulness in life; well-being of the society through excellence, creativity and exclusivity thatwas exposed to everyone representing heirlooms and permanentwealth (Lipovetsky, 2003; Michaud, 2003; Khalla, 2006). Luxury alsomeant conspicuousness, where luxury intrinsically, as an iconic sign,conveyed status, wealth and power of its user and owner (Llamas &Thomsen, 2016). Today luxury means worthiness and belonging, andsymbolizes status search (Kastanakis & Balabanis, 2012; Zhan & He,2012; Kauppinen-Räisänen et al., 2014) which imply that luxury verymuch serves self-interests—a desire of having, owning and using luxurybeing displayed by brands. The fact is that this desire is so captivatingthat new forms of business has evolved; firms renting luxury satisfyingthe desire of having and using (Zhan & He, 2012).
Today's luxury encompasses a double-faced god like Janus as luxury'sLatin etymology epitomizes—lux as light and luxuria as excess. Thismetaphor application indicates that luxury is a buzzword expressiblein fragmented meanings, and its definition is not agreed upon today(Kastanakis & Balabanis, 2012). Prior luxury research contributes withinsights to the product-centric viewon luxurymeaning,while the currentera of luxury popularization and democratization causes confusion, andwhat luxury means today remains unclear (Kapferer, 2012; Kastanakis
of luxury: Advancing from workbench definitions and theoretical1016/j.jbusres.2016.07.001
2 H. Cristini et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
&Balabanis, 2012) and the idea of “Luxury ismulti-discursive” as Calefato(2014, p. 3–4) describes. Therefore, research into luxury meaning isnecessary (Kastanakis & Balabanis, 2012) though still leaving outunderstanding as to why such fragmented meanings appear. Againstthis backdrop, this study contributes to the understanding of the currentchallenges attaching to themeaning of luxury and to luxury's transforma-tive nature. This objective is accomplished by viewing the transforma-tions of luxury and their meanings through an historical lens takingphilosophical and anthropological turns.
The study builds from the prevailing role of luxury in the WesternEuropean societies. Beside the view on being, sharing, and sensingversus having, owning, and using luxury, other dichotomies care reveal-able in the challenge to understand luxury and itsmeaning: public versusprivate (Castarède, 2004; Wilkins, 2008) excellence versus mediocrity(Hennigs, Wiedmann, Klarmann, & Behren, 2013), artistic creativityversus profitable creativity (Wilkins, 2008; Hennigs et al., 2013), long-term versus short-term (Khalla, 2006; Michaud, 2003), and finally, theopposition of feeding the spirit to pandering the self (Haws & Poynor,2008).
These oppositions are not exclusive, but they are presented in thestudy here to provide insights to the nature of luxury transformationand to what luxury means today. The selected approach challengesthe view on luxury, which is, “Often taken for granted. [As luxury iffrequently] considered as a clear-cut economic concept” (Mortelmans,2014, p. 193). Thereby, the study contributes to the understanding ofluxury.
Following this introduction, Section 2 presents a literature reviewthat focus on the transformations of the meaning and purposes ofluxury. Section 3 describes the demoralization and democratization ofluxury. Section 4 builds from the literature review to describe advancesin luxury theory. Section 5 concludes.
2. Literature review
2.1. Place - from the public place to the private space with publicconspicuousness
A basic approach to luxury has been that luxury serves the commongood. Therefore, the first opposition concerns the transformation ofluxury from something that could be accessed only in the public placeto being limited to the private, yet – in particularly, lately – with apublic, but also private conspicuousness or various degrees of brandprominence (Han, Nunes, & Drèze, 2010; Patsiaouras & Fitchett, 2012).Earlier, luxury was perceived as something that should be shared forthe means of common good. For example, Socrates (470–399 BCE)and Plato (470–347 BCE) stressed that, for the Greeks, luxury is a neces-sity (Berry, 1994). However, governed by the fear of lust, the need forcontrol, and the desire of peace and moderation, luxury had to be regu-lated and limited in order to have a peaceful city with a sense of harmo-ny where justice prevails (Berry, 1994). While, Plato—referring to theCity of Pigs (370 BCE)—explained that, when there are no limits onhuman desires, the city will go wrong and degenerate into a fevered“truphosa polis” or “appetitive luxurious city” (McKeen, 2004). Aristotleviewed that life of luxury was an unworthy one, which meant that itwas not meaningful for the good of the society (Berry, 1994).
Having a similar view on luxury, the stoics of Seneca (4 BCE–65 CE)advocated a simple and free life with only limited needs of the individualwas preferable to one that was immoderate: ‘[a] frugal, simple life hadlong chimed in with the asceticism of the early Christians’ (Berry, 1994,p. 90). Tertullian (160 CE–200 CE), the Christian stoic, wrote in De cultufeminarum about the necessity of control, and stressed the dangers ofluxurious excess within female dress and fashion (Berry, 1994). As itappears, the stoics advocated temperance as one cardinal virtues besidesjustice, moral strength and wisdom set by Marcus Aurelius (121 CE–180 CE) (Berry, 1994). While luxury or luxuria, in addition to excess,
Please cite this article as: Cristini, H., et al., Toward a general theorytransformations, Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.
meant lust anddesire, luxurywasmostly limited controlling the tendencyof human desire to go beyond what was needed.
Hence, throughout history, all kinds of sumptuary laws—in theancient Greek times, in the Roman era, in the medieval period, in theRenaissance up until the 17th century—have been the guardians of anorderly society, where luxury was perceived as a danger to be limitedto a public place (Wilkins, 2008). The reason for these laws was notonly a concern of the common good, but to maintain a certain distinctionbetween social classes, and also to encourage local luxury products.
After the 17th century, sumptuary laws were reduced considerably;maintaining them becamemore andmore difficult, while the economicdemocratization of European countries also contributed to their demise(Berry, 1994; Herrero, 1999). The trade increased, and larger segmentsof the population were now—not only allowed—but also able to buyluxury products (MacCants, 2007). Luxury consumptionwas supportedas it contributed to employment and economic well-being, yet, many ofthese indulgent luxuries—custom-made art, clothing, andjewelry—contributed also to the further separation of social classes,as the premium prices attached to these luxuries clearly delineatedwho could buy luxury products (Sombart, 1967; McCoy, 1980;MacCants, 2007; Hill, 2012). However, themain changewas that luxurywas no longer limited to serve the common good, but allowed to sat-isfy private—self-serving—needs (Veblen, 1899) as is epitomized withthe “secularization of love” (also called adultery love) in the seven-teenth century (Sombart, 1967).
Today, luxury exists for the benefit of consumers in their privatespace, yet also for public prominence (Young, Nunes, & Drèze, 2010).The current desire for luxury does not only relate to the inherentcharacteristics of the products themselves, but also to the brands andthe images they convey through the brand prominence (Kastanakis &Balabanis, 2012; Han et al., 2010). Luxury is not that much attached towhat the product is, but what the brand represents (Thomas, 2007;Han et al., 2010). Hence, consumers may accomplish their quest forwell-being by having, owning, and using luxury brands which providefulfillment and the satisfaction of the demand as phrased by L'Oréal'slegendary slogan “Because I'm worth it” (Moeller & Wittkowski, 2010;Kauppinen-Räisänen et al., 2014) or “feel good”, yet also to “show off”.If in prior eras, fear of losing control to vice drove the restrictions ofluxury, today's concessions seems to satisfy the craving for pleasurethat is perceived as individual virtue. Today, this desire and the objectof the desire is shared (Llamas & Thomsen, 2016). However, instead ofonly desiring the same object—brand—everyone can own the object asit is multiplied due to the mass-production.
2.2. Quality – from inherently striving at excellence to settling for themediocrity
Inherent excellence is one of the core meanings attached to luxury.Thus, the second pair of opposites exposes the striving at excellence tothe settlement for mediocrity. Excellence means that something isbetter than the ordinary; excellence is a quality dimension conveyingsuperiority, greatness, splendor, magnificence, and potentially evenperfection (e.g. Kauppinen-Räisänen & Grönroos, 2015).
In the ancient Greek times, the prevailing view was that, “Do whatyou do well, pay attention to what you are doing” (Castarède, 2004,p. 91). This view accompanied by a sense of coherence between theform and the content, encompass the excellence field of luxury. Untilthe Renaissance, luxury was the quintessential expression of magnifi-cence protected by the sumptuary laws in order to serve the commongood (Castarède, 2004).
Just a few decades ago luxury still was an expression of excellence,which was exclusive and unique, and mirrored—above all—by creativeand tailor-made craftsmanship made of exquisite materials (Thomas,2007). One iconic example is the Givenchy dress made especially forAudrey Hepburn for the movie Breakfast at Tiffany's. Today it could beimplied that Hephaestus—the god who makes, who creates—has lost
of luxury: Advancing from workbench definitions and theoretical1016/j.jbusres.2016.07.001
3H. Cristini et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
some of his influence and the feeling of satisfaction from creating, andinstead Hermes—the god who communicates—has taken over (Meer,2008). This transformation means that in the current dominatingconsumption society, media influences tastes and values, potentiallyeven reinforcing a short-term consumption aura. This transformationalso implies that the media moderates and molds appetite for mass-produced luxury brands. Hence, even if excellence might be the objectof the contemporary desire, the challenge is that excellence requireseffort (Kivetz & Simonson, 2002), while it is also being related to com-mitment and engagement (Kim, Park, Lee, & Choi, 2016; Shukla et al.,2016). In contradiction to the current ethos, which by taking a criticalview, be describable as being focused on the self, which reveals selfish-ness and attempts to feed one's own appetite (Sirgy, 1982), excellenceseems miles away. While, one might also claim that the commitmentand involvement is low (low as opposed to high order needs), medioc-rity will prevail, as such desire is reached by the minimum effort (Belk,1995).
For example, a marketing campaign for launching a new perfumecosts as much as the planned first-year profit (Thomas, 2007). Luxuryas displayed as creativity in its excellent craftsmanship has yielded toa technical vision of luxury that is displayed as mass-produced luxurybrands for the masses. Genuine excellent craftsmanship is declining asopposed to the current mass-produced luxury items. Evidently moreand more luxury brands are purchased (between 1995 and 2012, theymultiplied by seven) in our hedonistic contemporary experience, butit appears that the nature of the so-called luxury products have changedtoo.
2.3. Creativity - from an artistic, tailor-made creation to profitable, mass-produced creations
Another core meaning characterizing luxury relates to the fact thatluxury has been associated intrinsically with creativity (Lipovetsky,2003; Michaud, 2003) which earlier was portrayed by unique, custom-made creations. As luxury was an expression of magnificence andprotected by the sumptuary laws (Castarède, 2004), it was in thesespecific circumstances deemed to be creative. Thereby, luxury wasrepresented by and expressed through creations like monuments,public squares and fountains for the means of public splendor(Lipovetsky, 2003; Michaud, 2013).
The current technical reproduction of luxury is today indulged bymass-produced brands and epitomized by the luxurious brand image(Atwal & Williams, 2009). A critical stance could claim that the mean-ingfulness of form and content—if not been replaced—has changeddue to the appetite for experiences vaporizing some of the intrinsicmeanings of luxury (Atwal & Williams, 2009; Dunderberg, 2013) likeexcellence, creativity, and exclusivity. For example, although perfumesmay be expressed in creative and innovative designs, they are hardlygenuine or evidences of exclusive and unique craftsmanship—hautecouture of olfactory art—anymore. Instead they are represented bymass-produced brands that are mostly made of synthetic fragrances,which thought may be perceived to be an evidence of innovativenessand creative communicators. However, in this context, the natural andauthentic perfume has been replaced by something synthetic andpotentially even false, indicating that in some cases the craving forexperiences has replaced naturalness and authenticity. For example,95% of the chemicals used in fragrances are synthetic compoundsderived from petroleum—once on the consumers skin—may even jeop-ardize human well-being (http://ecotoad.org).
A metaphor of the creativity attachment occurs for today's luxury asexpressed by Bernard Arnault (CEO for LVMH Louis Vuitton MoëtHennessy), who in his usual philistine straightforward style says, “Whatinterests me in luxury is not creativity but the idea of transformingcreativity into profitability” (Thomas, 2007, p. 13). Hence, luxury mightstill be excellent, creative, and exclusive, but what was earlier related toart, is now related to business. This implies that the influence of creativity
Please cite this article as: Cristini, H., et al., Toward a general theorytransformations, Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.
has changed not creativity itself; the artistic view of luxury has changedfrom creativity to profitability. Interestingly, Atwal and Williams (2009)adds to the creativity's changed view that in the today's era of self-interest, luxury serves the individual needs and can be referred to as indi-vidual luxury, whereby creativity above all refers to personal creativity,which is expressed and presented by having, owning and using luxurybrands. This supports the view that luxury has transformed from beingsomething accessed in the public place to being private, yet flavouredwith conspicuousness.
2.4. Timespan – from a long-term to a short-term approach
The fourth opposition relates to having a long-term approach ofluxury as a means of building monuments and luxury representingheirlooms and permanent wealth (Khalla, 2006; Michaud, 2013) ora short-term approach, where luxury is represented by trendy fashionbrands or lived experiences for expressing or presenting one-self likeexperiencing Valencia Fallas or a touring along the river Danube(Kastanakis & Balabanis, 2012).
The European Middle Age's culture revolved around the Latinformula viator mundi. The individual was a transitory pilgrim travellingbetween the earthly life and the afterlife (Cristini, 2007). Luxury wasrepresented by religious monuments—monasteries andcathedrals—which were built to epitomize the love of God and the reli-gious emphasis of the time (Cristini, 2007). Up until the Renaissance,luxury was mostly oriented toward the religious. The switch from thespiritual ethos of the Middle Ages to a more temporal one, as exempli-fied by the earthly powers of the kings and the lords, allowed the build-ing of luxurious castles in the Renaissance (Delannoy, 2009). Theculture's outlook then became “faber mundi” or the man creator,where human being was the one who created (Eliade, 1957). Thefaber mundi served a different desire; the one that dominates (LibidoDominandi). This change of ethos continued with the Enlightenment(1688–1800). The philosophers of the time, such as Voltaire (1694–1778), envisioned luxury as progress for all andwelcomed luxury, espe-cially in its immoral dimension, as freeing men from the yokes of reli-gion (Galliani, 1989).
The motivating desire of human changed in nature, and became adesire to know it all; in the Middle Ages the Christian church muffledthe desire to know (Eco, 1982). The Renaissance onward, the individualbecame omniscient, reversing the Middle Age ethos of an omnipotentand omniscient God. Along with liberal theories like those of Kant(1724–1804) advocating free trade, the end of sumptuary laws andprotectionism—luxury turned gradually to something increasinglyuseful creating more trade and employing more people for the sake ofproducing these luxury items (e.g. McCoy, 1980).
Today, in the current era of experiences, luxury is being embraced onthe Internet feeding the luxury appetite with innovative technologies(Atwal & Williams, 2009; Dunderberg, 2013). Hence, while sensingfirst luxury impression online is possible, the abundance of informationconveys that everything is knowable and accessible, which in turn, mayfeed the impatience. Unique and custom-made luxury is hardly a re-sponse to that instant desire, which instead is met by mass producedand branded luxury offerings. Yet, sustainable steps are being takenwithin that luxury industry, which was acknowledged as a sector inits own right 2013 having long-term as a key driver.
2.5. Well-being—from feeding the spirit to pandering the self
The fifth opposition relates to luxury being directed toward feedingthe spirit and the common good to indulging the self, serving self-seeking means. Earlier, when luxury was limited mostly to the publicplace, the aim was to control the tendency of human desire and not togo beyond what was needed. As the human being is not moved by theneeds, but the desires (Bachelard, 1992), the sumptuary laws limitedthe desires and guarded the society, as the fear was that otherwise the
of luxury: Advancing from workbench definitions and theoretical1016/j.jbusres.2016.07.001
4 H. Cristini et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
society would go wrong. Potentially, not acknowledged at the time, de-sires are not alike, as not all have a discriminating effect as some desiresare in fact connecting (Delannoy, 2009).
Plato (n.d., 431 BCE–411 BCE) used the metaphor of appetite orfever to express a desire pushed-to-excess that jeopardizes thesociety's harmony. Appetite or “tropheros” has been the key to un-derstanding the role of the guardians, who adjusted the metaphori-cal strings of music instruments by relaxing or by pulling thestrings' tension to create the proper harmony within the polis(Plato, n.d., 431 BCE–411 BCE). The guardians' role was, in fact, tomoderate the feverishness of the luxurious city. The analogy of fever-ishness works in tandemwith the need to order the body of the state,as Colonna D ’Istria (1991) stated, luxury invades the human con-science with the loads of its needs and desires. Socrates commentedto that effect as follows: Contentment is natural wealth, while luxuryis artificial poverty (Plato, n.d., 431 BCE–411 BCE).
Up until the Renaissance, luxury was represented by religiousmonuments and oriented toward religious, where desire was limitedand assumed to be satisfied by feeding the spirit (Delannoy, 2009).From the Enlightenment period onward, the approach of reasoningluxury was not similar anymore to that ancient Greeks or Christiansbut instead closer to the Roman approach of indulging, which meantthat luxury could be used in an unchallenged way in the privatesphere (Girard & Oughourlian, 1978; Girard, 2010). In other words,people would treat themselves with luxury or with luxurious itemsfor their house or for themselves in a frank and straightforwardway. The ancient Greeks' ethos and that of the Christian era encour-aged abiding to a hierarchy in values, an all-encompassing reason(not just a mathematical-empirical reason) and the capacity to ad-mire. As the sumptuary laws practically disappeared, so did luxuryfade away slowly as a means of feeding the spirit.
The contemporary desire for luxury reflects the current state in thehuman conscience's needs and desires; in an extreme situation the indi-vidualmay evenwillingly sacrifice basic need for feeding the owndesireof having a rather short-term and potentially mediocre experience ofsomething expressed as luxury and perceived as luxurious like a dayat Paris Disneyland or a day at a spa (Belk, 1999; Lascu, Manrai, &Manrai, 1994). Also, as status, wealth and power have been intrinsiciconic luxury meanings, yet now being so desired self-attachments(Berthon, Pitt, Parent, & Berthon, 2009), one could even claim thatluxury brand has become an end in itself. As Berry (1994, p. 173) argues,“Money is society's language and luxury has become its grammar”.Indeed, historically, luxury used to be the affair of the rich and powerful,so if the current society has become a mass society of consumption,enabling desire of luxury in terms of luxurious brands, luxury haschanged to something that might be excellent and creative, but isn'texclusive anymore (Kapferer, 2010). The transformation of luxury tosomething feeding the self-serving appetite serves to trivialize theconcept, while also dropping some of its inherent meanings.
This transformation also appears as inducing a desire to imitatestars, celebrities. Consumers are seduced by this celebrity endorse-ment that makes them want to have “that bag, those glasses orthose clothes, just like Julia Roberts or Sean Penn” (Berger & Ward,2010, p. 555). One might even imply that consumption has becomethe religion and the consumer spirit is fed by celebrities, as theyhave become the priests. While Eliade (1957) has argued that some-thing that at first glance is not religious, may still establish a sacredcharacter, one might also suggest that the brand has become thesource of contemporary worship.
Yet, a different economic crisis may well change all that. Isn't itpossible that luxury brands could play the guardian role in ourmass-consuming society by cooling off the fever for materialism,instead of pandering the self and feeding the appetite? The fact is thatfrom long-term, to short-term, the currentmeta-trends of sustainabilityand durability are supporting the long-term approach (Hennigset al., 2013; Hepburn, Beinhocker, Farmer, & Doyne, 2014), which
Please cite this article as: Cristini, H., et al., Toward a general theorytransformations, Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.
may not be a trend at all, but a state and spirit of mind, part of themental models.
3. Demoralization and democratization of luxury
When Bernard Mandeville wrote The Fable of the Bees in 1714, hewas actually writing about the social utility of selfishness: privatevices were seen as positive public benefits, just like the bees workingfor the welfare of the hive (McCoy, 1980). In this satire, Mandevillewrote that all social laws resulted from the selfish will of the weak touphold and mutually support one another. Hence, a libertine mayhave acted out of vice in pursuing own desires, but this prodigalityprovided work to the tailors, the waiters, the perfumers, the cooks andthe prostitutes, who in turn hired bakers and carpenters. That is whythe rapaciousness and the violence of the libertine profited to societyin general. Such work emerged in the midst of the Enlightenment,which emphasized reason and individualism, and opposed all kinds oftraditional authority such as the king and the church (McCoy, 1980;McCollim, 2012). Indeed, these issues may have been the initial stepsof luxury's demoralization and even democratization, as breaking freefrom moral buffers enabled luxury to be reached and accessed by agreater amount of people.
The decisive break from a moral approach that viewed luxury as anexcess and a threat to anorderly society that jeopardizedmoral virtue toa new focus and understanding of it as ‘well-being’ in terms of economicprosperity, occurred in a contingent setting. It is in the context of trade,in the midst of the mercantilist era (1500–1776), that the significantshift in the meaning of luxury occurred. Colbert, the finance minister(1661–1683) of Louis XIV, used to say there is no cause more certainfor the bankruptcy of the state than the excess of a disordered luxury(Galliani, 1989, p. 110). Indeed, Colbert was well aware of the thriftless,extravagant spending in the luxurious parties that the Sun King orga-nized in Paris. That excessive and disordered luxury was frownedupon by Colbert, and Louis XIV had to restrain his lifestyle so thatFrance's finances could be replenished (McCollim, 2012).
From the political economy point of view, liberalism replaced mer-cantilism,which allowed luxury to growexponentially andhorizontally,especially in the 20th century (Kapferer, 2012).With the liberal world'sdominance after the economic and political demise of the Soviet Union(Fukuyama, 1989), most developed countries experienced economicprosperity in the sense that thanks to birth of the middle classes, itradically changed consumption habits (Flatters & Wilmott, 2009).Gradually, from the 1990 onwards some of the most populated nations,like China and India have experienced economic growth, followed by anincreasing desire for luxury (Liu et al., 2016). Hence, globalization didnot just bring its liberal economy, but also its consumption habits andmodern culture.
The pristine identity of luxury being excellent, creative and exclusivehas changed to luxury now being reachable and accessible (Yeoman,2011) or at least evoking that illusion. This so-called new luxury(Kapferer & Laurent, 2016) is just like its peers—being led by anultra-utilitarian model—whose sustainability, ethical responsibilityand long-term approach can be challenged. The intriguing issue is,will the new luxury be able to sustain itself? (Nueno & Quelch, 1998).
Indeed, the current financial, economic, environmental and cultural(geopolitical) crisis may be what is needed to change the businessmodels (Flatters & Wilmott, 2009)—if that would be desired. Theseinterdependent crises, sharing a lack of ethics as a commondenominator,might have an influence on—not only on consumer behavior (Flatters &Wilmott, 2009)—but also the mental models of the decision-makers.Post-recession trends on consumer decisions are already underway:consumers have been changing their habits in displaying ethical,green consumerismwith a focus on boardroom and discretionary thrift,demanding quality–excellence–and a more virtuous economic system(Flatters & Wilmott, 2009). Such trends lead us to luxury as a ‘businessmodel’ (Kapferer, 2012) targeting not only excellence but also
of luxury: Advancing from workbench definitions and theoretical1016/j.jbusres.2016.07.001
5H. Cristini et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
creativity, long-term approach and spiritual well-being. If not, the newluxury epitomized in the double faced Janus may well concur with theindustries by following a market-fundamentalist approach, being ag-gressive to people, nature and to the planet overall (Nueno & Quelch,1998; Carfagna, Dubois, & Fitzmaurice, 2014).
4. Advancing luxury theory
The study pursues a double aim of which the first was to provide in-sights into the nature of luxury transformation. Related to that luxurycontinues the process of transforming from being an essence relatedto being, sharing, and sensing into the very current desire of having,owning, and using. This desire reflects above all to luxury brands thatare hardly demonstrations of craftsmanship, but are rathermanifestationsof successful media-driven persuasion. Hence, thanks to the liberal, dem-ocratic system, luxury became accessible tomore andmore people as thebirth of a consumer society along with the development of the industrialrevolution, shaped and transformed tastes and preferences (McKendrick,1984). Today, luxury appears increasingly as technically reproductions,flooding the market with mass manufactured products to address thehedonistic modern man. As it appears, the mainstream luxury dynamichas shifted from being perceived as negative for the individual and jeop-ardizing social virtue to amere device at the service of a consumer society(Berry, 1994). Yet, the luxurious brands appear not to be that satisfactoryafter all—leaving desires unfilled—as the consumers are constantlycravingmore (Michaud, 2003). Hence, not only is the current incarnationof luxury not making consumers happier as such luxury mainly feeds onthe addictive consumption trends (Ebguy, n.d.), and thereby, a concernis that luxury may—despite the seemingly sustainable steps changingthe mental models—not be sustainable economically or environmentallyafter all (Nueno & Quelch, 1998; Carfagna et al., 2014; Hepburn et al.,2014).
The study also provides insights towhat luxurymeans. The transfor-mation of luxury was paralleled with the image of the double facedJanus, the study displays some of the paired opposites that havemarkedthe phenomenon of luxury over the years. As a result, Fig. 1 presentspossible configurations of its meanings today and exemplars of luxuryand non-luxury objects and experiences. Going beyond the desire of
Fig. 1. The luxury transfo
Please cite this article as: Cristini, H., et al., Toward a general theorytransformations, Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.
beauty (Belk, 1999), the contemporary need and desire of excellentquality, sustainable creativity, ultimate excellence, and meaningfulnessmanifests the search of luxury. For example, Fig. 1 shows that luxury isexpressible by excellent creations like the Trevi Fountain displayed forthe sake of social well-being and implies that luxury meaning may beattached to Tiffany ear rings or short-term pandering through Italiangelato.
As the concept of luxury causes confusion, the study also pinpointsone possible solution to identify luxury as the paradigm in Fig. 1expresses. Fig. 2 shows that all creations that, as a configuration, arehigh on all three conditions—excellence, creativity and exclusivity—arehigh on luxury. However, even if there is an association between exclu-sivity and excellence, excellence can comewithout exclusivity. Thereby,following the idea by Isaksson and Woodside (2016), the claim is thathigh exclusivity is insufficient, but necessary for ultra-high excellence.By saying this, the study implies that luxury rests on asymmetry,which means that although all the three conditions are sufficient todefine luxury, they are not necessary. As the traditional meaning ofluxury associating with excellence, creativity and exclusivity (Okonkwo,2007, 2009; Jackson & Shaw, 2009) is less and less prevalent in today'sluxury approach driven by brands, luxury can come without one ofthese conditions being high, still being perceived as luxury. Yet, ultimateluxury requires that the all conditions are high. Respectively, a brand,product, or service lacking one or even all of these conditions hardy rep-resent luxury in its own right. While stressing various levels of luxury,the weight of the lines in the figure attempts to indicate how difficult itis to go to the next level of luxury definition.
5. Conclusion
To conclude, the study clarifies and deepens the meaning of luxury,and recognizes that it owns a complexmeaning; it is has more than onemeaning depending in the context. While luxury continues to trans-form, tangible and intangible luxuries still appear as to be controversialphenomena that by their inherent meanings and conditions rest on aparadox. Still, Morin (2008) supports its existence by saying thatconsumers who were previously unable to attain luxury, thanks tobrands, have started to own some luxury items. Related to that Morin
rmation paradigm.
of luxury: Advancing from workbench definitions and theoretical1016/j.jbusres.2016.07.001
Fig. 2. Asymmetric (thought experiment) modeling of luxury brands.
6 H. Cristini et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
says further that mass culture has also produced some masterpiecesimbued with humanism. Also, it may well be that consumers willdemand a more responsible and edifying concept of luxury. After all,like Antoine de Saint-Exupéry reckoned, “There is only one true luxury,that of human relationships”.
References
Atwal, G., & Williams, A. (2009). Luxury brand marketing: The experience is everything!Journal of Brand Management, 18(5/6), 338–346.
Bachelard, G. (1992). La psychanalyse du feu [Psychoanalysis of fire] (2nd ed.). Paris,France: Gallimard.
Belk, R. W. (1995). Collecting in a consumer society. London: Routledge.Belk, R.W. (1999). Leaping luxuries and transitional consumers. In R. Batra (Ed.),Marketing
in transitional economies (pp. 39–54). Mass: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Berger, J., & Ward, M. (2010). Subtle signs of inconspicuous consumption. Journal of
Consumer Research, 37(4), 555–569.Berry, C. (1994). The idea of luxury: A conceptual and historical investigation. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.Berthon, P. R., Pitt, L., Parent, M., & Berthon, J. -P. (2009). Aesthetics and ephemerality:
Observing and preserving the luxury brand. California Management Review, 52(1),45–66.
Calefato, P. (2014). Luxury, fashion, lifestyle, and excess. London, UK: Bloomsbury.Carfagna, L., Dubois, E., & Fitzmaurice, C. (2014). An emerging eco-habitus: The reconfig-
uration of high cultural capital practices among ethical consumers. Journal ofConsumer Culture, 14(2), 158–173.
Castarède, J. (2004). Le luxe. Que sais-je. Paris, France: Presses Universitaires de France.Chandon, J. -L., Laurent, G., & Valette-Florence, P. (2016). Pursuing the concept of luxury:
Introduction to the JBR special issue on luxurymarketing from tradition to innovation.Journal of Business Research, 69(1), 299–303.
Colonna, D.'’’. I.,. R. (1991). Hermine. Paris, France: Robert.Cristini, H. (2007). A different model for solving political conflicts: A comparative study of
religions. Peace and Change, 32(4), 574–589.Delannoy, A. (2009). Comprendre la Représentation du Luxe dans une Logique de
Fidélisation à la Marque-Exemple de la Perception des Jeunes de 18 à 25 ans. Under-stand the representation of luxury within a logic of the example of the brand from theperception of the 18–25 years old. Paris, France: CNAM Doctorate thesis.
Donzé, P. -Y., & Fujioka, R. (2015). European luxury big business and Asian emergingmarkets, 1960–2010. Business History, 57(6), 822–840.
Dunderberg, I. (2013). Moral progress in early Christian stories of the soul. New TestamentStudies, 59, 247–267.
Ebguy, R. (d). Robert-Ebguy-sociologue-nous-recherchons-une-societé-de-consolation[R.E.-sociologist-we are looking for a society of consolation]. Available at www.psychologies.com/Planete/Societe/Interviews/ accessed 18 November 2014
Eco, U. (1982). Le nom de la rose [The name of the rose]. Paris, France: Grasset.Eliade, M. (1957).Mythes, rêves et mystères [Dreams, myths and mysteries] (1st ed.). Paris,
France: Folio.Flatters, P., & Wilmott, M. (2009). Understanding the post-recession consumer. Harvard
Business Review, 87(7), 106–112.Fukuyama, F. (1989). The end of history. Summer: The National Interest.Galliani, R. (1989). Rousseau, le luxe et l'idéologie nobiliaire. Etude socio-historique
[Rousseau, luxury and the ideology of nobility]. Studies on Voltaire and theEighteenth Century, 268(8), 411–439.
Please cite this article as: Cristini, H., et al., Toward a general theorytransformations, Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.
Girard, R. (2010). Battling to the end: Conversations with Benoit Chantre. East Lansing, MI:Michigan State University Press.
Girard, R., & Oughourlian, J. M. (1978). Des choses cachées depuis la fondation du monde.Paris, France: Biblio Essai.
Han, Y. J., Nunes, J., & Drèze, X. (2010). Signaling status with luxury goods: The role ofbrand prominence. Journal of Marketing, 74(4), 15–30.
Haws, K., & Poynor, C. (2008). Seize the day! Encouraging indulgence of the hyperopicconsumer. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(4), 680–691.
Hennigs, N., Wiedmann, K. P., Klarmann, C., & Behren, S. (2013). Sustainability as part ofthe luxury essence. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 52, 25–35.
Hepburn, C., Beinhocker, E., Farmer, J., & Doyne, F. (2014, September–October). Resilientand inclusive prosperity within planetary boundaries. China &World Economy,22(5), 76–92.
Herrero, S. M. (1999). The policy of embargoes and the smuggling of luxury products intoMadrid (1635–1673): Court society and dependency of international traders.Hispania-Revista Espanola de Historia, 201(JAN-APR), 171–191.
Hill, L. (2012). Adam Smith on thumos and irrational economic ‘man’. The European Jour-nal of the History of Economic Thought, 19(1), 1–22.
http://ecotoad.org/tag/toxic-chemicals (accessed 15 January 2015).Isaksson, L. E., & Woodside, A. G. (2016). Modeling firm heterogeneity in corporate social
performance and financial performance. Journal of Business Research, 68(2),3285–3314.
Jackson, T., & Shaw, D. (2009). Mastering fashion marketing. Basingstoke, England: Pal-grave Macmillan.
Kapferer, J. N. (2010). All that glitters is not green: The challenge of sustainable luxury.The European Business Review(Nov-Dec), 40–45.
Kapferer, J. N. (2012). Abundant rarity: The key to luxury growth. Business Horizons, 55,453–462.
Kapferer, J. N., & Laurent, G. (2016). Where do consumers think luxury begins? A study ofperceived minimum price for 21 luxury goods in 7 countries. Journal of BusinessResearch, 69(1), 332–340.
Kastanakis, M. N., & Balabanis, G. (2012). Between the mass and the class: Antecedents ofthe “bandwagon” luxury consumption behaviour. Journal of Business Research,65(10), 1399–1407.
Kauppinen-Räisänen, H., & Grönroos, C. (2015). Are service marketing models really usedin modern practice? Journal of Service Management, 26(3), 346–371.
Kauppinen-Räisänen, H., Gummerus, J., v Koskull, C., Finne, Å., Helkkula, A., Kowalkowski,C., & Rindell, A. (2014). Am I worth it? Gifting myself with luxury. Journal of FashionManagement and Marketing, 18(2), 112–132.
Khalla, M. (2006). Relation au sacré et fidélité à la marque. Relation to the sacred and loyaltyto the brandFrance: University of Caen, Basse Normandie Doctorate thesis.
Kim, S., Park, G., Lee, Y., & Choi, S. (2016). Customer emotions and their triggers in luxuryretail: Understanding the effects of customer emotions before and after entering a luxuryshop. Early view: Journal of Business Research.
Kivetz, R., & Simonson, I. (2002). Earning the right to indulge: Effort as a determinant ofcustomer preferences toward frequency program rewards. Journal of BrandManagement, 39(2), 155–170.
Lascu, D., Manrai, L. A., & Manrai, A. K. (1994). Status-concern and consumer decisionmaking in the marketizing economy of Romania: From the legacies of prescribedconsumption to the fantasies of desired acquisition. Research in Consumer Behavior,7, 89–122.
Lipovetsky, G. (2003). De l'Age du sacré au temps des marques [From the age of the sacred tothe age of the brands]. Paris, France: Gallimard.
Liu, S., Perry, P., Moore, C., & Warnaby, G. (2016). The standardization-localization dilem-ma of brand communications for luxury fashion retailers' internationalization intoChina. Journal of Business Research, 69(1), 357–364.
of luxury: Advancing from workbench definitions and theoretical1016/j.jbusres.2016.07.001
7H. Cristini et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
Llamas, R., & Thomsen, T. U. (2016). The luxury of igniting change by giving: Transformingyourself while transforming others' lives. Journal of Business Research, 69(1),166–176.
MacCants, A. (2007). Exotic goods, popular consumption, and the standard of living:Thinking about globalization in the early modern world. Journal of World History,18(4), 433–462.
McCollim, G. (2012). Louis XIV's assault on privilege. Nicholas Desmaretz and the tax onwealth. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
McCoy, D. (1980). The elusive republic: Political economy in Jeffersonian America. ChapelHill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
McKeen, C. (2004). Swillsburg city limits: The 'city of pigs': Republic 370c–372d. Polis,21(1–2), 70–92.
McKendrick, N. (1984). The birth of a consumer society: Commercialization of eighteenthcentury England. Harper Collins Publishers Ltd.
Meer, R. (2008). Mémoire récit de voyage dans l'art textile de l'Inde, texte et photogra-phies de Rosenda Meer [Memory story about a trip in the art of textile in India].Paris, France: Editions Le Cachemirien.
Michaud, Y. (2003). Essai sur le triomphe de l'esthétique [Essay on the triumph of the aesthetic].Paris, France: Stock.
Michaud, Y. (2013). Le Nouveau luxe, expériences, arrogance, authenticité [The new luxury,experiences, arrogance, authenticity]. Paris, France: Stock.
Moeller, S., & Wittkowski, K. (2010). The burdens of ownership: Reasons for preferringrenting. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 20(2), 176–191.
Morin, E. (2008). Mon chemin [My way]. Paris, France: Fayard.Mortelmans, D. (2014). Measuring the luxurious in advertisements: On the popularization
of the luxury perfume market. Semiotica, 199, 193–217.
Please cite this article as: Cristini, H., et al., Toward a general theorytransformations, Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.
Nueno, J. L., & Quelch, J. (1998). The mass marketing of luxury. Business Horizons, 41(6),61–68.
Okonkwo, U. (2007). Luxury fashion branding: Trends, tactics, techniques. London, UK:Palgrave Macmillan.
Okonkwo, U. (2009). Sustaining the luxury brand on the internet. Journal of BrandManagement, 16(3), 302–310.
Patsiaouras, G., & Fitchett, J. A. (2012). The evolution of conspicuous consumption. Journalof Historical Research in Marketing, 4(1), 154–176.
Plato. The Republic (327a – 336a), Vol. 3. (trans. 2009). G. Farlik (Trans). Denver, CO: Pa-rietal Publishing.
Shukla, P., Banerjee, M., & Singh, J. (2016). Customer commitment to luxury brands:Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Business Research, 69(1), 323–331.
Silverstein, M. J., & Fiske, N. (2005). Trading up. New York, NY: Penguin Group Portfolio.Sirgy, J. (1982). Self-concept in consumer behavior: A critical review. Journal of Consumer
Research, 9(3), 287–300.Sombart, W. (1967). Luxury and capitalism. Ann Harbor: University of Michigan Press.Thomas, D. (2007). De luxe: How luxury lost its luster. New York, NJ: Penguin Press.Veblen, T. (1899). The theory of the leisure class: An economic study of institutions. New
York, NY: Random House.Wilkins, J. (2008). Athenaeus, the navigator. Journal of Hellenic Studies, 128, 132–152.Yeoman, I. (2011). The changing behaviors of luxury consumption. Journal of Revenue and
Pricing Management, 10, 47–50.Young, J. H., Nunes, J., & Drèze, X. (2010). Signaling status with luxury goods: The role of
brand prominence. Journal of Marketing, 74(7), 15–30.Zhan, L., & He, Y. (2012). Understanding luxury consumption in China: Consumer percep-
tions of best-known brands. Journal of Business Research, 65(10), 1451–1460.
of luxury: Advancing from workbench definitions and theoretical1016/j.jbusres.2016.07.001