For references see the original article
Martens, L., Southerton, D., & Scott, S. (2004). Bringing Children (and Parents) into the Sociology of Consumption. Towards a Theoretical and
Empirical Agenda. Journal of Consumer Culture, 4, 155-182. https://doi- org.ezproxy.library.wur.nl/10.1177%2F1469540504043680
Bringing Children (and Parents) into the Sociology of Consumption
There has been little attention to consumption in combination with children. The article
starts with taking a look at the literature within the sociology of consumption and point
out the implications of the neglect of children’s consumption. Development in the
sociology of consumption have been modelled in different ways. There are three main
perspectives that are broadly agreed on. This article mainly discusses the first
perspective.
1. Production of consumption
2. Mode of consumption
3. Consumption as aesthetics
This article is written according to two points. The firs, ordinary consumption
characterized as daily, conventional, repetitive (inconspicuous). Which is critique on
sociology of consumption’s overemphasis on the conspicuous form of consumption. The
second, consumption as practice.
The authors suggest that recognition of theories concerning the mode of consumption;
the degrees of autonomy in consumption; and material engagement with consumption,
provides the framework for an empirical agenda that investigates the relationship
between children and consumption.
Children and the production of consumption
Different disciplines of study have different views of consumption and concentrate on
different aspects. A point that is widely agreed upon is the focus on the relationship
between the market and children. This point, however, neglects other social
relationships. This results in a lack of interest in symbolic meanings that people create
around consumption. Also, little research is actually done with children, and when
children are involved, they are seen as homogeneous groups instead of groups with a lot
of diversity. Not to mention the lack of regard for social context.
All this together is (part of) the scholarly work on children and consumption. There are
a lot of common characteristics of this work and the view of “production as
consumption” (aka, the first perspective). The definition of consumption here is
narrowed to only the market, not allowing other modes of provision. It also neglects the
interpretation of experiences of consumption culture by parents and children; children
are seen as patronized and manipulated by parents; and consumer behavior is read off
of production trends, which leads to inaccurate conclusions. About this the authors say:
“what we find here is a characterization of the relationship between production and
consumption in which production simply stipulates consumer behavior.”
, For references see the original article
Martens, L., Southerton, D., & Scott, S. (2004). Bringing Children (and Parents) into the Sociology of Consumption. Towards a Theoretical and
Empirical Agenda. Journal of Consumer Culture, 4, 155-182. https://doi- org.ezproxy.library.wur.nl/10.1177%2F1469540504043680
The part where production determines consumer behavior is clearly visible in effects
research. The goal of effects research is to find the negative impact of products of
production on consumers (aka children). Added to this is the commentary on textual
messages that are encoded in goods and services for children. Carmen Luke suggests
that the manner in which children receive popular culture messages is important to the
understanding of cultural texts, artefacts, social subjects, and practices. She argues that
these messages play an important role in forming social identities such as “child”,
“family”, and “gender”; and that children cannot escape popular culture.
Negative interpretations of children’s consumer culture seem to be dominant.
Consumers meaning systems should be examined. Children in particular needs to be
examined interacting with consumption goods. An important factor in children’s
consumer culture is the role of other consumers, individually and as social groups. Little
is known about how children engage in consumption practices. Knowledge about
children’s consumer culture is necessary as attention for commercials and marketing
grows
The sociology of consumption went through a shift which led to new questions about
the role and purpose of consumption in contemporary society. But there still is
significant scope for the sociology of consumption to investigate the relationship
between children and consumption.
Consumption and the invisibility of children
This part of the article discusses three key approaches (mode of consumption and
learning to consume; lifestyle and identity formation; material culture) to consumption
regarding the relationship between children and parents and how information on
children and consumption can add to debates within sociology.
Approach 1: Mode of consumption and learning to consume
Featherstone describes the mode of consumption as the way that goods variably used to
create distinctions and reinforce social relationships. Within this subject the work of
Pierre Bourdieu has great value. The authors of this article write: “He sees consumption
as a process of reproducing dispositions that constitute differential tastes and emanate
from the pursuit of the conduct of a life that is subjectively acceptable in the context of
objectively given circumstances”.
With objective circumstances he refers to the different kinds of capital (economic, social
and cultural), which determines one’s class and therefore, one’s consumption behavior.
So, consumption is representative of class-based social relations.
Bourdieu uses the term habitus to describe “an acquired system of generative schemes
objectively adjusted to the particular conditions in which it is constituted”. This concept
is both structured (it is a principal mechanism) and structuring (it organizes agent’s
Martens, L., Southerton, D., & Scott, S. (2004). Bringing Children (and Parents) into the Sociology of Consumption. Towards a Theoretical and
Empirical Agenda. Journal of Consumer Culture, 4, 155-182. https://doi- org.ezproxy.library.wur.nl/10.1177%2F1469540504043680
Bringing Children (and Parents) into the Sociology of Consumption
There has been little attention to consumption in combination with children. The article
starts with taking a look at the literature within the sociology of consumption and point
out the implications of the neglect of children’s consumption. Development in the
sociology of consumption have been modelled in different ways. There are three main
perspectives that are broadly agreed on. This article mainly discusses the first
perspective.
1. Production of consumption
2. Mode of consumption
3. Consumption as aesthetics
This article is written according to two points. The firs, ordinary consumption
characterized as daily, conventional, repetitive (inconspicuous). Which is critique on
sociology of consumption’s overemphasis on the conspicuous form of consumption. The
second, consumption as practice.
The authors suggest that recognition of theories concerning the mode of consumption;
the degrees of autonomy in consumption; and material engagement with consumption,
provides the framework for an empirical agenda that investigates the relationship
between children and consumption.
Children and the production of consumption
Different disciplines of study have different views of consumption and concentrate on
different aspects. A point that is widely agreed upon is the focus on the relationship
between the market and children. This point, however, neglects other social
relationships. This results in a lack of interest in symbolic meanings that people create
around consumption. Also, little research is actually done with children, and when
children are involved, they are seen as homogeneous groups instead of groups with a lot
of diversity. Not to mention the lack of regard for social context.
All this together is (part of) the scholarly work on children and consumption. There are
a lot of common characteristics of this work and the view of “production as
consumption” (aka, the first perspective). The definition of consumption here is
narrowed to only the market, not allowing other modes of provision. It also neglects the
interpretation of experiences of consumption culture by parents and children; children
are seen as patronized and manipulated by parents; and consumer behavior is read off
of production trends, which leads to inaccurate conclusions. About this the authors say:
“what we find here is a characterization of the relationship between production and
consumption in which production simply stipulates consumer behavior.”
, For references see the original article
Martens, L., Southerton, D., & Scott, S. (2004). Bringing Children (and Parents) into the Sociology of Consumption. Towards a Theoretical and
Empirical Agenda. Journal of Consumer Culture, 4, 155-182. https://doi- org.ezproxy.library.wur.nl/10.1177%2F1469540504043680
The part where production determines consumer behavior is clearly visible in effects
research. The goal of effects research is to find the negative impact of products of
production on consumers (aka children). Added to this is the commentary on textual
messages that are encoded in goods and services for children. Carmen Luke suggests
that the manner in which children receive popular culture messages is important to the
understanding of cultural texts, artefacts, social subjects, and practices. She argues that
these messages play an important role in forming social identities such as “child”,
“family”, and “gender”; and that children cannot escape popular culture.
Negative interpretations of children’s consumer culture seem to be dominant.
Consumers meaning systems should be examined. Children in particular needs to be
examined interacting with consumption goods. An important factor in children’s
consumer culture is the role of other consumers, individually and as social groups. Little
is known about how children engage in consumption practices. Knowledge about
children’s consumer culture is necessary as attention for commercials and marketing
grows
The sociology of consumption went through a shift which led to new questions about
the role and purpose of consumption in contemporary society. But there still is
significant scope for the sociology of consumption to investigate the relationship
between children and consumption.
Consumption and the invisibility of children
This part of the article discusses three key approaches (mode of consumption and
learning to consume; lifestyle and identity formation; material culture) to consumption
regarding the relationship between children and parents and how information on
children and consumption can add to debates within sociology.
Approach 1: Mode of consumption and learning to consume
Featherstone describes the mode of consumption as the way that goods variably used to
create distinctions and reinforce social relationships. Within this subject the work of
Pierre Bourdieu has great value. The authors of this article write: “He sees consumption
as a process of reproducing dispositions that constitute differential tastes and emanate
from the pursuit of the conduct of a life that is subjectively acceptable in the context of
objectively given circumstances”.
With objective circumstances he refers to the different kinds of capital (economic, social
and cultural), which determines one’s class and therefore, one’s consumption behavior.
So, consumption is representative of class-based social relations.
Bourdieu uses the term habitus to describe “an acquired system of generative schemes
objectively adjusted to the particular conditions in which it is constituted”. This concept
is both structured (it is a principal mechanism) and structuring (it organizes agent’s
