Berhau, Patricia G. Class and The Experiences of Consumers - A Study of The Practices of Acquisition PDF

INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films
the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and
dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of
computer printer.
The quality o f this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the

copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations
and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by

sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing
from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced

xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9° black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing
in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.
Bell & Howell Information and Learning

300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA
800-521-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
][ Temple University
Doctoral Dissertation
Submitted to the Graduate Board
Title o f Dissertation: Class and the Experiences of Consumers: A Study of the

(Please type) Practices of Acquisition
Author: Patricia G. Berhau

(Please type)
Date o f Defense: July 22, 1999

(Please type)
Dissertation Examining Committee:(piease type) Read and Approved By: (Signatures)
Annette Lareau
...
Dissertation Advisory Committee Chairperson
Robert Kidder
Kevin Delaney
David Miller
VcuJL
Magali Sarfatti-Larson
Examining Committee Chairperson Examining Committee
Date Submitted to Graduate Board:
Accepted by the Graduate Board of Temple University impartial t of the requirements for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy. jv /
Date
(Dean of the Graduate School)
CLASS AND THE EXPERIENCES OF CONSUMERS:
A STUDY OF THE PRACTICES OF ACQUISITION
A Dissertation
Submitted to
the Temple University Graduate Board
in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
by Patricia G. Berhau
January, 2000
UMI Number. 9965956
Copyright 2000 by
Berhau, Patricia G.
All rights reserved.
__ ®
UMI
UMI Microform 9965956
Copyright 2000 by Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company.
Ail rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
by
Patricia G. Berhau
2000
All Rights Reserved
ABSTRACT
Class and the Experiences of Consumers: A Study of Practices of Acquisition

Patricia G. Berhau
Doctor of Philosophy
Temple University, 2000
Annette P. Lareau, Doctoral Advisory Committee Chair
Proponents of the “death of class" thesis suggest that consumption is
essentially a classless arena. Such analyses, however, are based on overly narrow
definitions of activities in the realm of consumption. Scholars writing in this vein have
focused on the goods people possess and ignored the processes through which those
goods are obtained.
This dissertation considers the relationship between class and the experiences
of individuals as consumers. The analysis includes those activities that take place at
the moment of purchase, as well as those which occur away from the sites of retail
(e.g., planning shopping trips, saving money toward purchases). The study is based on
in-depth interviews and participant observation with a cross-class sample of eighteen
families living in a major (US) metropolitan area.
The findings suggest that class shapes the experiences of consumers in
significant ways. The influence of class is most apparent in the mental and emotional
activities that precede the purchase event. The study reveals the ways in which class
shapes individuals’ orientations toward and conceptions of time when acting as
consumers. In addition, the character of the mental calculations in which individuals
engage (i.e., vague and indeterminate vs. clear and straightforward) when acting under
this guise also varies by class. Class-linked financial resources (not limited to income)
are shown to be central to the effects of class on these processes, although other
iv
factors such as cultural capital and issues of status position also appear to be
influential.
While the weight of the study’s evidence points to significant class differences,
some aspects of acquisition practice appear to be largely unaffected by class. Most
notably, structural factors related to the form of American retail (e.g., the prevalence of
chain stores) render much of the in-store experiences of shoppers highly similar. The
analysis, therefore, speaks to the complexity of the relationship between class and
acquisition processes and suggests that this complexity is part of the enduring power
of class. Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of habitus is used as a way of placing acquisition
practices within a broader frame of class experience and helping to see the role of
these practices in creating class.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
On my journey toward completing this work, I benefited greatly from the
assistance of others. I would like to thank the members of my Dissertation Advisory
Committee (Annette Lareau [Chair,] Kevin Delaney, Bob Kidder, Danny Miller, and
Magali Sarfatti Larson) for their interest in my work and their support throughout this
process. I realize that not all students are as fortunate as I have been in this regard.
These individuals are the kids of teachers we all wish for, offering just the right blend of
constructive criticism, gentle (and not so gentle) encouragement, and just plain good
ideas. Annette Lareau has been a mentor and a friend to me throughout my graduate
career. Though I long ago became accustomed to the generosity she has shown me,
both in terms of her time, and her genuine interest in my work, I’ve never taken these
for granted. It has all been much appreciated. Danny Miller treated me as one of his
“own" graduate students, including me in seminars, suggesting books that I should
read, and even making me a member of UCL's material culture and consumption
“drinking group.” Cheers.
Of course, none of this would have been possible were it not for the willingness
of my respondents to allow me into their homes and to share what many would
consider to be intimate details of their lives with me. Though I cannot thank them by
name, I am grateful to them all.
Finally, my most heartfelt thanks go to family and friends who have supported
me in ways too many to mention. Particularly in the final phase of this process, my
parents, Kathleen and Zachary Berhau, my sisters, Ann Leiter, Jean Berhau, and
vi
Louise Berhau, and on many, many occasions, my mother-in-law, Carol Cohen made it
possible for me to tend to my writing by loving and generally entertaining my most
wonderful toddler, Jeremy. I truly do not know how I would have managed without
them. Thanks to Jeremy too for always being such a trooper.
Finally, I would like to thank my husband, Maurie Cohen, for all the reasons
spouses of graduate students deserve to be thanked. Maurie has encouraged and
tolerated and prodded and generally put up with for a long time. I thank him for it all.
This work is dedicated to him, of course.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT.......................................................................................................... iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..................................................................................... vi
LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................ xi
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................... 1
Introduction: Consumption and Class............................................ 1
Seeing Class Through Practice: The Work of Pierre Bourdieu 8
A Study of Class and Practices of Acquisition............................... 14
Organization of the Study............................................................. 15
2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY................................................................. 17
Overview of the Research Design.................................................. 17
The Sample................................................................................... 18
Sample Specifications................................................................... 19
Parental Status and Other Lifecourse Variables................. 19
Households or Individuals?................................................ 23
Class................................................................................. 23
Race................................................................................. 30
Geographic Area................................................................ 31
Sample Selection.......................................................................... 33
A Note on Financial Resources: How Distant from Necessity? 34
Income.............................................................................. 35
Monetary Assets................................................................ 40
Credit Assets..................................................................... 45
Housing Assets................................................................. 49
Durable Goods.................................................................. 54
Other Tangible and Intangible Assets................................ 58
Data Collection............................................................................. 64
The Interviews................................................................... 64
Fieldwork and the “Lareau Families” Data.......................... 66
The Lareau Study................................................... 66
Fieldwork for the Dissertation................................ 67
Data Analysis................................................................................ 69
Reflections on the Methodological Approach................................. 69
3. THE MEANING OF SCARCITY: ACQUISITION PROCESSES AND

CONSUMERS OF THE WORKING CLASSES.................................... 76
Introduction................................................................................... 79
The Experience of Poverty: Consumers of the Working Class
Poor......................................................................................... 77
“The Basic Things:" The Working Class Poor as
Non-Consumers and Hyper-Consumers....................... 81
viii
A Note on “Blowing It” ........................................................ 93
Working Class Poor Consumers.................................................... 94
Beyond Basic Needs.......................................................... 95
So Far and Yet So Near. Shared Experiences
of Working Class and Working Class Poor
Consumers....................................................................105
Why are Working Class Consumers So Similar to the Poor?..........120
Summary....................................................................................... 124
4. CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER: THE THINKING WORK IN WORKING

CLASS AND WORKING CLASS POOR ACQUISITION
PRACTICES.................................................................................. 126
Introduction.................................................................................... 126
On Time......................................................................................... 127
Conceiving of Time: When a Week is a Meaningful
Interval.......................................................................... 127
Immediacy without Hedonism: A Current-Time Orientation 132
Bourdieu, the “Culture of Poverty” and the Element
of Time...............................................................135
Deferred Gratification and the Backlog of Working
Class Wants.......................................................139
Clarity and Simplicity in the Practices of Working Class and
Working Class Poor Consumers................................................146
Zero-Sum Relationships..................................................... 155
Clarity of Objective............................................................. 162
Clarity of Source.................................................................167
Summary and Discussion............................... ..............................169
5. ACQUISITION PRACTICES OF THE UPPER-MIDDLE CLASS................ 171

A Casual Approach: The Non-Issue of Acquisition in Upper-
middle Class Households ........................................................ 171
Saving Time, Saving Money, and Other Choices............................185
Summary and Discussion.............................................................. 205
6. FROM A DISTANCE: THINKING AND FEELING INUPPER-MIDDLE

CLASS PRACTICES OF ACQUISITION.................................................207
Vagueness and Complexity in the Practices of Upper-middle
Class Consumers..................................................................... 207
The Effects of Complex and Indeterminate Budgetary
Systems........................................................................ 208
Destination Unknown......................................................... 215
Indeterminacy and Financial Setbacks................................219
Measuring Tomorrow in Years: Issues of Time and the Concerns
of Upper-middle Class Consumers............................................ 225
Summary and Discussion.............................................................. 236
ix
7. SOCIO-CULTURAL RESOURCES IN ACQUISITION PROCESSES 240
Introduction.................................................................................... 240
The Case of Electronics Merchandise: Encounters with
Salespeople............................................................................. 244
Summary and Discussion...............................................................262
8. THE LIMITS OF CLASS............................................................................ 267

Introduction....................................................................................267
Shopping Without Class: The Sites of Retail................................. 268
Expansion of Large Retail Chains.......................................270
Changing Marketing Strategies.......................................... 272
“One-Mall-Fits-AII”.............................................................. 277
The Power of Consumers: Coping with Problems in the Market 290
Shopping: Loving It, Hating It, Doing It........................................... 309
A Final Note: The Importance of Gender........................................325
Summary and Discussion...............................................................329
9. CONCLUSION.......................................................................................... 332
Does Mass Consumption Mean Mass Experience?........................333
Bourdieu, Habitus, and Relationship Between Class and
Consumption..............................................................................343
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................... 349
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Household Composition, Upper-middle Class Households.................. 20

Table 2.2 Household Composition, Working Class Households.......................... 21
Table 2.3 Household Composition, Working Class Poor Households..................22
Table 2.4 Education and Occupation, Upper-middle Class Households.............. 26
Table 2.5 Education and Occupation, Working Class Households...................... 27
Table 2.6 Education and Occupation, Working Class Poor Households.............. 28
Table 2.7 Annual Household Income, Upper-middle Class Households.............. 36
Table 2.8 Annual Household Income, Working Class Households...................... 37
Table 2.9 Annual Houseold Income, Working Class Poor Households................ 38
Table 2.10 Monetary Assets, Upper-middle Class Households............................. 41
Table 2.11 Monetary Assets, Working Class Households..................................... 42
Table 2.12 Monetary Assets, Working Class Poor Households............................. 43
Table 2.13 Status of Credit Accounts, Upper-middle Class Households................46
Table 2.14 Status of Credit Accounts, Working Class Households.......................48
Table 2.15 Status of Credit Acounts, Working Class Poor Households................. 50
Table 2.16 Housing Assets, Upper-middle Class Households............................... 51
Table 2.17 Housing Assets, Working Class Households....................................... 52
Table 2.18 Housing Assets, Working Class Poor Households...............................53
Table 2.19 Durable Goods Owned, Upper-middle Class Households....................55
Table 2.20 Durable Goods Owned, Working Class Households............................56
Table 2.21 Durable Goods Owned, Working Class Poor Households................... 57
Table 3.1 Venues for Obtaining Children's Clothing, Working Class and
Working Class Poor Households...................................................116
Table 7.1 Electronics Merchandise Shopping by Store Type and Household.... 243
Table 8.1 Discount Store Patronage by Household......................................... 274
Table 8.2 Mall Patronage by Household.......................................................... 278
xi
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Introduction: Consumption and Class
One of sociology’s major strengths lies in its ability to help us understand
inequality. Sociology asks questions that help us to see how unequal relationships are
created, maintained, and reproduced. In doing so, sociologists have long utilized the
concept of class to explicate stratification processes.
Indeed, Marx, one of the founding fathers of the discipline, viewed class
relations as the fundamental means by which inequality is both produced and
experienced in capitalist societies. Marx argued that ownership —and thereby
control— of the means of production provides the basis for class stratification and
struggle (Marx 1977; Marx and Engels 1968). Of course, Weber took another view.
Weber (1946) defined classes not in terms of relationships to the means of production,
but rather in terms of market relations, most notably position in the labor market.
Although Weber did not argue for the primacy of class relations as the root of
stratification (as did Marx), he nevertheless acknowledged that advantages in the
economic (class) sphere often, even “typically” accompany advantages or power in the
political and social spheres.
Influenced by the works of these major theorists, the concept of class has
played an important role in the development of sociological theory (e.g., Dahrendorf
1959; Giddens 1973; Wright 1985; Poulantzas 1979. See further discussion in Chapter
Two) and empirical analysis throughout the twentieth century.1 In recent years,
1 Empirical works on issues of class stratification cover a vast terrain of topic areas. Some of the
major areas of empirical investigation include: social mobility and status attainment (e.g., Breiger
2
however, scholars have increasingly come to question the relevance of class to
contemporary social relations. Critics contend that classes have become fragmented
and lost their cohesion as social, cultural and political entities (Clark and Lipset 1991;
Pakulski and Waters 1996; Pahl 1989; Gorz 1982; See Lee and Turner 1996 for a
review). The well-documented shift from manufacturing to service-based economies
(e.g., Bluestone and Harrison 1982) is seen as having softened distinctions between
class groups. The result has been increased murkiness in the delineation of class
boundaries. People neither view themselves nor act as members of classes.2
In making their case, class skeptics point to the growing importance of
consumption to social identity and division. Whereas relations of production were
central to such processes in the past, relations of consumption are said to be of
greater relevance today (Clark and Lipset 1991; Pakulski and Waters 1996; Pahl 1989;
Bauman 1987, 1988; Beck 1992; Giddens 1991; for a review, see Crompton 1993,
especially Chapter Seven). As one critic put it,
1981; Hauser et al. 1975; Sewell, Haller and Portes 1969), social reproduction (e.g., Bourdieu
1984; Willis 1977; Macleod 1987), class-based activism and political consciousness (e.g.,
Gaventa 1980; Piven and Cloward 1977; Tilly and Tilly 1981; Lipset 1960; Fantasia 1988),
issues of family and community relations (Bott 1957; Young and Wilmott 1957; Shostack 1969;
Rubin 1976; Halle 1984), class-based values (Kohn 1977; Kohn and Schooler 1969), and the
relationship between class and other forms of social stratification (for example, on race: Wilson
1979; on gender: Ostrower 1984; Rollins 1985).
2 Other factors seen as contributing to increased murkiness in the delineation of class

boundaries and the related decline of class as a meaningful social stratifier include technological
innovation in the workplace, the expansion of global markets (with respect to both production
and consumption), increases in economic productivity and wealth creation, and shifts in the
capitalization and size of firms (Clark and Lipset 1991). In addition, class skeptics argue that the
expansion of the state has resulted in a decline in the significance of class since it reduces the
importance of family of origin on life chances (see also Dizard and Gadiin 1991; See Houtet al.
[1993] for a pointed critique). Moreover, a number of critics contend that reductions in the
number of hours spent at work as well as workers’ overall sense of commitment to the
workplace have reduced the importance of work generally (and, thus, class) to individual and
group identity (Offe 1985:129-150; Pakulski and Waters 1996:85; Bauman 1982).
3
The new classless culture focuses on consumption rather than

production... In [this] consumer culture the items consumed take on a
symbolic and not merely a material value so that consumption becomes
the main form of self-expression and the chief source of identity...
‘Taste,’ ‘fashion,’ and ‘lifestyle,’ [t]hese are the key sources of social
differentiation that displace both class and political affiliation. (Pakulski
and Waters 1996:121-22)
Unsurprisingly, while consumption is seen as being of central importance to both
individual identity and societal division, it is viewed by advocates of the “death of class"
thesis as decidedly classless. This represents a break from previous patterns.
According to these critics, consumption previously reinforced class division by
providing markers of difference. It was one of the numerous ways in which people’s
lives differed by class. Consumption provided a source of class solidarity by outwardly
marking people as either members or others. As Clark and Lipset (1991:400) argue, it
was part of the glue that kept class groups (in particular, the working class) together
“If proletarians are visibly distinct in dress, food and life style, they are more likely to
think of themselves, and act as a politically distinct class. In the nineteenth and early
twentieth century, this was often the case..."
Today, however, the relationship between class and consumption is said to
take on a different character. Class critics stress the ways in which consumer goods
have lost much (or all) of their class connotations. Today’s consumption patterns
transcend class boundaries as part of the more flexible relationships that characterize
the current era. The mixing of things like soccer, a traditionally working class sport,
with opera, a traditionally highbrow indulgence of the upper and upper-middle class
(e.g., The Three Tenors’ performance at the World Cup 1994) is seen as evidence of
the new, cross-class (or classless) patterns of consumption (Pakulski and Waters
1996:122). Relatedly, the mass marketing of various branded goods (e.g., Nikes,
4
Disney products, McDonald’s, Levi’s) has meant that individuals from a wide range of
backgrounds consume the same products.3 The images surrounding consumer goods
today are more about lifestyle than class, per se (e.g., Featherstone 1991; Giddens
1991; Baudrillard 1988). As a result, consumption blurs rather than strengthens class
division. As Frank Parkin contends, in contrast to the situation for “earlier generations,"
today, consumer goods impart little information about the class of their owner “It would
take an unusually sharp eye to detect the social class of Saturday morning shoppers in
the High Street, whereas to any earlier generation it would have been the most
elementary task” (1979:69 cited in Clark and Lipset 1991).
Arguments regarding the classless nature of consumption are not entirely new.
This notion was an important component of the “affluent worker" or
“embourgeoisement thesis” put forth in the 1950s and 1960s (Goldthorpe et al. 1969;
LeMasters 1975; Zweig 1961). At that time, researchers noted the increased incomes
and greater job security available to a growing segment of workers following World
War II. These “affluent workers” were shown to be similar to their middle class/white
collar counterparts in a various ways, including possession of a range of major
3 The evidence as to whether consumption truly crosses class lines is mixed. Bourdieu (1984),
of course, in his study of French society found significant differences in the goods people
consume by class (see further discussion of Bourdieu, below). Within the American context,
much of the research on this issue has been done on the consumption of the arts (e.g., music,
art, cinema). The most recent evidence on such “goods" suggests that although upper/upper-
middle class consumption is more varied than that of lower class groups, there is, nevertheless
a great deal of crossover (Peterson and Kern 1996; Peterson and Simkus 1992; DiMaggio
1987). DiMaggio suggests that consumption of popular culture crosses class boundaries, but
that in addition to that, those from upper class groups also consume “high culture" arts such as
opera and classical music (see also Gans 1973). At the same time, he argues, the consumption
of high culture forms has been steadily decreasing in recent years, even among upper/upper-
middle class consumers (see also Lamont 1992).
In a study on consumption of mass culture products (e.g., food, clothing, furnishings,
leisure activities) Holt (1998) found similar patterns across class categories (or, more
specifically, “cultural capital” groupings) in terms of what people consumed, but significant
differences in the practices associated with and sense of appreciation of the goods.
5
consumer goods. Increasingly, workers were able to afford to purchase the homes,
automobiles, television sets, and kitchen appliances that were produced with their
labor. As is true today, the fact that consumption patterns crossed class barriers was
seen as reducing —even if only temporarily (Goldthorpe et al. 1969)— class conflict.4
While similar in their assertions regarding the classless nature of consumption,
arguments of this kind made today (e.g., Clark and Lipset 1991; Pakulski and Waters
1996) differ in an important way from those made as part of the embourgeoisement
thesis. In the earlier spate of research, cross-class similarities in possession of
consumer goods were chiefly attributed to the growing affluence of workers (e.g.,
increased pay, greater job security, access to expanded state benefits). By contrast, in
current “classless consumption” arguments, no such claims are made. In fact, little is
offered by these scholars in the way of explaining how, precisely, it has happened that
individuals from various points along the class spectrum are able to access the same
goods. None of these advocates, for example, is suggesting that workers’ incomes
have increased (or, conversely, that middle class incomes have decreased). Indeed, it
is widely accepted that the gap in income between workers and members of the
middle/upper-middle class has widened, not shrunk, over the past thirty years
(Danziger and Gottschalk 1993; Michel, Bernstein, and Schmitt 1999). Neither is the
issue of falling prices, which might also explain cross-class consumption patterns,
been employed by advocates of this thesis. Indeed, such claims would appear difficult
to maintain when products of seemingly universal appeal such as Nike sports shoes
sell for an average of $80 to $90 a pair (Roberts, 1999). Other potential explanations
4 Critical Theorists also made earlier arguments regarding the effects of mass consumption on
class division. Horkeimer and Adorno (1972) argued that mass consumption obscures real class
divisions and antagonisms.
6
for the shift toward classless consumption, such as the expansion of credit, have also
not been effectively employed (see Chapter Two for discussion of credit cards as
curtailing, rather than encouraging consumption among members of certain class
groups).
The silence on issues of access to goods is rooted in a fundamental problem
with the “classless consumption” position. The problem is that these scholars rely on a
stunted view of consumption. Implicitly and explicitly, they define consumption in terms
of the ownership and display of goods. Their understanding of the concept is limited to
observations of “who has what.” As a result, these scholars have privileged the objects
themselves in their analyses of consumption. They have failed to consider the ways in
which consumption entails processes of thought, feeling, action, and interaction. In
particular, they have missed they ways consumption entails processes of acquisition in
which individuals utilize material and social resources to exact market goods. In
defining consumption as beginning with ownership or possession, they have
disregarded the transactions associated with obtaining goods and services. We are left
with the impression that consumer goods are simply there, having required no
particular thoughts or actions on the part of actors to be obtained for use. Issues of
access to goods and how such access is accomplished have not been problemetized.
This is a mistake. The activities of obtaining goods are integral to consumption.
Under both industrial and postindustrial forms of capitalism, the consumption of goods,
by and large, requires the acquisition of goods since individuals do not create the
products they consume. Just as individuals in capitalist societies labor for wages as
workers, individuals spend wages to obtain market goods as consumers. But while
sociology has produced numerous, detailed accounts of the experiences of individuals
7
as workers (e.g., Burawoy 1979; Kanter 1977; Terkel 1972; Gouldner 1954), similar
studies of the experiences of consumers are absent. We have little understanding of
what people experience in their attempts to obtain market goods.
Moreover, by employing a post-acquisition definition of consumption, scholars
have taken for granted its material bases. In taking such an approach, scholars ignore
the fact that consumer goods are generally obtained through economic transactions
involving the exchange of money —or the promise of it (e.g., credit) — for goods. This
is important because access to such resources is in many ways class-linked. As a
result, in bypassing processes of acquisition in their analysis, scholars overlook that
part of consumption which is, arguably, most favorably positioned to reveal the
influence of class.5
5 Class skeptics do not actually engage the growing body of literature in the area of consumption
studies (for reviews see Miller 1995; Slater 1997; Gabriel and Lang 1995; Corrigan 1997).
Indeed, little of what class analysts have to say about consumption is supported by research (or,
even, more pointed theorizing and commentary) of any kind.
However, were these scholars to take into account the consumption literature, they
would have little reason to alter their position. As with the class skeptics, scholars of
consumption have had little to say about the processes through which goods are obtained.
Theirs too has been a post-acquisition perspective on consumption. As Campbell (1995) has
argued, this literature has overemphasized image, identity, and meaning in consumer products
and ignored the acts of obtaining goods, particularly the material bases inherent in such acts. As
According to Campbell, in the literature on consumption “...consumer actions are not viewed as
real events involving the allocation or use of material resources (or even as transactions in
which money is exchanged for goods and services) so much as symbolic acts or signs: acts
which do not so much ‘do something’ as ‘say something,’ or more properly perhaps, ‘do
something through saying something" (Campbell 1995:115).
Indeed, scholars in the field have been principally concerned with the meaning of goods
(Appadurai 1986; Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton 1987) and the images with which they
are associated (e.g., Baudrillard 1988; see Shields 1992). These meanings and images are not
necessarily those handed to consumers by capital (as suggested by Frankfurt School theorists)
but are actively created by consumers (Hedbidge 1979; see Nava 1991 for review of cultural
studies literature regarding the power of consumers as such). Scholars have also focused on
the use of goods in creating and communicating identities (e.g., Dittmar 1992; Hedbidge 1979;
McCracken 1990) and social relations (Douglas and Isherwood 1996). Of course, the role of
material goods in communicating status has long been central to analyses of consumption
(Veblen 1899; Packard 1959). In each of these trajectories, scholars have defined consumption
as beginning after goods have been obtained.
Remarkably little of this scholarship has been based on empirical investigation.
Similarly, scholarship on activities directly pertaining to the acquisition of goods has, until quite
8
Seeing Class through Practice: The Work of Pierre Bourdieu
The ideas of French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu can help us to shift our
analysis in a different direction. Bourdieu puts forth a theory of social reproduction that
focuses on the practices of actors (see in particular 1977; 1984). For Bourdieu, class
takes on meaning and is reproduced through practice. The way we think and feel is
rooted in what we experience in the world. What is important in consumption is not
simply what one wears or eats, but rather how one wears it or eats it. Bourdieu
contends that the mental, physical and emotional processes (or practices) involved in
such acts both stem from class and help to reproduce class.
In making his arguments, Bourdieu uses the concept of habitus to describe the
mechanisms through which class is reproduced. He defines the habitus as “systems of
durable, transposable dispositions" (1977:72). Bourdieu sees the practices in which
individuals engage as disposing (or, as he sometimes puts it, predisposing) them to
feel comfortable acting (as well as thinking and feeling) in certain ways. What feels like
“second nature” is not actually natural but subtly inculcated through practice. In a
sense, it is a process of social osmosis that Bourdieu describes. Though actors do not
learn, in a direct manner, to act in a particular way or prefer one taste or style over
another, they nevertheless come to desire and favor that to which they are exposed.
recently, been absent of empirical investigation. Initially, it was historical accounts of shopping in
the nineteenth century which began to fill this void (e.g., Benson 1986; Leach 1984; Miller 1981;
Nava 1997; Schlereth 1989; for a review see Glennie 1995). It is only in the past few years that
these works have been joined by more contemporary empirically-based analyses focusing
specifically on the activities of obtaining goods (Miller et al 1998; Miller 1998; Gregson and
Crewe 1997; Clarke 1997; Lunt and Livingstone 1992; see also Falk and Campbell 1997). The
overwhelming majority of this work has centered on the British context. American literature on
consumption has been sparse. Other than studies in the 1960s and 1970s on consumers as
victims of corporate or retail abuse (e.g., Caplovitz 1963) little academic research on
consumption has been done.
9
Importantly, the habitus differs by class. This is because habitus is rooted in
our “experience in the world” and these experiences are anchored by class (1984:
387). In particular, Bourdieu points to the “material conditions of existence
characteristic of a class condition” (1977:72) as fundamentally influential over the form
of habitus. In Distinction, he emphasizes the role of material urgency (or lack thereof)
in shaping the practices of consumption. “Distance from necessity," as he puts it, is a
basic “condition of existence;" it shapes both what and how we consume.6
Thus, for example, Bourdieu shows how the working class, whose material
conditions are such that they are near to necessity, eat hearty stews which fit into their
budget. But they prepare such dishes not only because it is what they can afford. They
come to desire, or prefer, this type of food which is possible (i.e., affordable) for them
to eat. Moreover, their manner of dining also reflects their “distance from necessity” in
that the emphasis is on abundance; the goal of the meal is that diners finish with a full
stomach (1984:194-5). By contrast, the upper-middle class, whose material resources
place them further from necessity, eat meals where the focus is on form rather than
function. Smaller portions are served and table settings, the order of food presentation,
and the manner of eating are emphasized (1984:196-199).
These differing practices and the tastes and dispositions that go along with
them are not innocuous. For Bourdieu, such class differences are central to social
reproduction; they are tools of exclusion. Institutions of power (e.g., educational
institutions) validate the practices of upper class groups while devaluing the skills
6 While Bourdieu is careful to stress that such class-linked material conditions neither directly
determine practice nor are they the sole factors influencing habitus, he does, nevertheless,
emphasize material conditions as a particularly potent aspect of class, highly influential over the
form of habitus (see 1984:373-396).
10
inculcated through life as it is experienced in the lower classes. In this way, the
reproduction of class inequality is rooted in the fact that we experience the world
differently by virtue of class position.
Bourdieu’s ideas offer a way to move beyond the problems plaguing the
classless consumption approach. With his notion of habitus, Bourdieu highlights the
importance of seeing what people do, rather than simply what they have. This includes
not only their physical actions but also their thought processes and emotional
experiences.7 While the classless consumption approach fixates on the ubiquity of
certain consumer products, Bourdieu shows how consumption (as well as other
spheres of social relations) can be more fruitfully analyzed when seen as a process.
While this in itself is not wholly innovative, Bourdieu’s concept of habitus is.8 The
concept of habitus offers a way of viewing seemingly disparate aspects of people’s
lives —such as preparing dinner, enjoying music, doing our work, buying bedroom
furniture— in an integrated fashion. It provides a way of conceptualizing these
mundane, seemingly distinct acts as part of a cluster of experiences that, taken
together, comprise a powerful mechanism for experiencing, creating, and recreating
class. Thus, Bourdieu offers a way to locate the practices of consumers in a broader
framework of class relations.
7 While the core of Bourdieu’s theory regards taste and the manner of consumption in making
his argument he does, nevertheless, highlight class differences in the products people consume.
For example, he notes differences in sports participation (tennis as a middle class sport, see
1984:214-220) and choice of music (Blue Danube for the working class, Art of the Fugue for the
upper classes, see 1984:14-16). Still, Bourdieu’s main contribution lies in his analysis of the way
taste and the manner of consumption differs by class (and is used, as such, as a tool of
exclusion).
8 As noted above, the literature on consumption generally does reflect an understanding that of
consumption as a process/practice, particularly with regards to issues of identity, relationship,
and meaning creation. See, for example, the classic work by Douglas and Isherwood (1996).
11
Still, despite its promise, the concept of habitus lacks conceptual clarity. As
others have argued, it is not clear what, precisely, habitus is or how it is formed
(Jenkins 1992; Swartz 1997). In some measure, this lack of clarity is understandable.
The concept is meant to tap what are in many ways an amorphous, unidentifiable,
even incoherent assortment of relationships and experiences. We should not dismiss
the concept simply because it fails to offer a straightforward tool for analysis. At the
same time, however, if we are to benefit from the ideas behind it, then developing a
clearer sense of what, precisely it entails is necessary. Lareau (1989), for example,
has done this in her analysis of the relationships between families and schools.
Through detailed study of these relationships, her work has helped clarify Bourdieu's
concept of cultural capital, showing how it is selectively activated by actors. By looking
at specific relationships and the practices of actors in particular settings we can bring
Bourdieu’s concept of habitus to life and begin to develop a clearer understanding of
how it works.
In addition to these unresolved issues, it should also be noted that Bourdieu’s
work shares some of the problems of the classless consumption approach. In his work
on consumption, Bourdieu (1984) also defines consumption as a post-acquisition
phenomenon. Though he rightly considers how people use, define, and appreciate
goods —representing an advance over the straightforward possession-based analysis
of class skeptics— he, nevertheless, fails to consider the processes through which the
goods are obtained. As with the classless consumption approach, we are left with little
understanding of how the practices associated with accessing goods are
accomplished. Thus, while he argues that practice should be at the center of our
analyses, he employs a restricted definition of consumption practice.
12
This is significant not only because these processes are integral to
consumption but, more importantly, because they are closely linked to what Bourdieu
himself cites as fundamental to the shape of habitus and the experiences of actors:
“distance from necessity." As he argues, “the habitus is necessity internalized and
converted into a disposition that generates meaningful practices and meaning-giving
perceptions." In bypassing the practices of obtaining goods, Bourdieu misses those
practices most closely associated with the material conditions of people’s lives. While
understanding how people think, feel and act in relation to goods is illuminating, it does
not take the analysis as close to material conditions as it could be. In other words, a
more intimate relationship between material conditions and practice exists than
Bourdieu analyzes. By examining the transactions integral to the procurement of
goods, one can see how “distance from necessity" plays out in everyday life and the
practices (and thus, habitus) it generates directly.9
In short, there is disagreement over the nature of the relationship between
class and consumption. Within debates over the continuing relevance of class to social
stratification, some scholars contend that consumption is a sphere of social relations in
which class has little effect. From this perspective, consumption helps to blur class
9 To be sure, distance from necessity is not the only aspect of class which shapes the habitus.
But looking at these transactions (as part of the processes of acquisition) positions the observer
to see the effects of material conditions more clearly. This should not, however, be taken to
mean that other class-related factors (e.g., cultural capital) would not have a role in influencing
these processes. Indeed, other concepts —notably that of cultural capital and social capital—
advanced by Bourdieu have done much to dispel the notion that class can be reduced solely to
economic issues. At the same time, as I argue in the dissertation, class-linked financial
resources (i.e., a range of economic factors including, but not limited to income) have a
particularly strong influence on the character of these transactions and the activities surrounding
them.
13
boundaries and diffuse class conflict, as the items people consume vary little along
class lines.
Others view the relationship between class and consumption differently.
Bourdieu sees class as shaping consumption practices. He argues that people do
consume differently along class lines, both in terms of what they consume and, more
importantly, in terms of how they consume. For Bourdieu, what is important are the
practices of consumers. He focuses on how people use, relate to, and appreciate
various goods. From his perspective, these class differences are rooted primarily in the
links between class and material resources.
In each of these analyses, consumption is defined as something that happens
after goods are obtained (i.e., as a post-acquisition phenomenon). In doing so,
scholars have overlooked the processes through which individuals access goods and
services. The thoughts, feelings and activities experienced by individuals in attempts to
obtain market goods have been left out of the analyses. As a result, scholars’
assessments of the nature of the relationship between class and consumption are
based on distorted and incomplete views of activities in the consumption sphere.
In this dissertation, I examine the relationship between class and processes of
acquisition: the mental, physical, and emotional processes in which individuals engage
as they obtain (and fail to obtain) goods and services. I ask: What does being a
consumer entail? What kinds of skills do people rely upon when acting under the guise
of consumer? What kind of thinking processes are employed by individuals as they go
about obtaining market goods? How does class influence these activities?
14
A Study of Class and Practices of Acquisition
Two sets of literature are addressed in this dissertation. Of primary interest is
the literature on the relationship between class and consumption. Given prevailing
assertions regarding the demise of class and rise of consumption, our understanding
of contemporary stratification patterns requires a more complete analysis of the
relationship between the two. The stunted view of activities in the sphere of
consumption relied upon by class critics provides a distorted plane from which to base
our analysis. Even if contemporary conditions of mass consumption do encourage
cross-class possession of a wide range of goods, the processes through which
individuals obtain those goods may differ by class. Without developing a more holistic
understanding of activities in the sphere of consumption, including the experiences of
individuals in obtaining (or seeking to obtain) goods and services, scholars risk wrongly
relegating this sphere to the role of class leveler when a more complex relationship
may be evident. Thus, the dissertation considers the relationship between class and
the processes in which individuals engage in obtaining market goods.10
A second, related literature addressed in the dissertation regards Bourdieu’s
concept of habitus. To be a useful concept, researchers must take this promising but
abstract notion and explore how, precisely it plays out in everyday life. This dissertation
explores an aspect of consumers’ lives not previously considered either in Bourdieu’s
own work or in that of researchers of class or consumption. By focusing on activities in
10 it should be clear that issues related to the style or character of that which individuals
consume is not the focus of this study. Thus, for example, that one group of consumers might
prefer wall-to-wall carpeting while another opts for area rugs is not directly considered in my
analysis. Such matters are of concern to this research only to the extent that the process of
obtaining an area rug, for example, might be different from the process of obtaining wall-to-wall
carpeting.
15
which material (as well as social) resources are often directly in use, this research
offers new insights on the contours of habitus and, more specifically, how it is formed.
Organization of the Study
As outlined in Chapter Two, my analysis is based on ethnographic-style
research conducted with members of upper-middle class, working class and working
class poor families residing in neighboring northeastern (US) communities. Through in-
depth interviews and fieldwork observation I learned about the processes through
which these individuals obtain goods and (to a lesser extent) services, including
budgeting monies for spending, planning (mentally) for purchases, deciding about
whether to make a purchase, talking to children about desired goods, “going
shopping," and interactions with store personnel. Also in Chapter Two, I provide
detailed analysis of the financial resources with which these consumers approach
commodity markets, showing how those resources are linked to class position.11
Financial resources are central to the relationship between class and processes of
acquisition. Having laid this groundwork, I describe the experiences of working class
and working class poor consumers in the study in Chapters Three and Four. In
Chapter Three, I describe the practices through which working class and working class
poor consumers obtain market goods, noting areas of divergence and convergence
between the two. In Chapter Four I offer a more detailed analysis, whereby I look
specifically at the ramifications of those consumers’ practices, particularly the types of
mental and emotional processes they entail. I focus on issues of time (e.g., time
11 Here and throughout the dissertation I use the term “commodity” markets in the general sense
as relating to markets for “anything that is useful or can be turned to commercial or other
advantage” (see American Heritage Dictionary, Laurel edition, 1989). Economists use this term
16
orientation; time conceptualization) and the clarity of the relationships evident in
acquisition practices in these households, noting the ways these dimensions of habitus
are developed through such processes. Comparable analysis of upper-middle class
respondents is provided in Chapters Five and Six, with differences between the
experiences of upper-middle class respondents and those of the working class groups
highlighted.
With much of the analysis in previous chapters centering on the effects of
class-linked financial resources, I emphasize in Chapter Seven the role of (class-
linked) socio-cultural resources in shaping consumers experiences. Using the example
of customer interactions with salespersons (of electronic merchandise) I demonstrate
the importance of such resources to these processes. In Chapter Eight, I depart from
the emphasis in the dissertation analysis on class differences in acquisition practices
to note areas of these processes relatively untouched by the effects of class. I point to
both structural factors (regarding the structure of retailing in the US) as well as socio
cultural meanings (e.g., enjoyment from shopping) to show how, despite significant
differences by class in consumers’ overall approaches to and experiences of
acquisition, areas of considerable and important overlap remain. This caveat is further
explored in the concluding chapter (Chapter Nine) where I consider these findings in
light of both arguments regarding the classless nature of consumption, as well as their
implications for the development of Bourdieu’s concept of habitus.
in a more specified way, as “an article of trade or commerce that can be transported, especially
an agricultural or mining product” (see American Heritage Dictionary, Laurel edition, 1989).
17
CHAPTER 2
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
In this chapter, I provide an overview of the research methodology employed in
the study. The criteria for defining the sample for this research were not self-evident.
Since we are all consumers in one form or another, almost anyone could have been
selected for inclusion in the study. I elected, however, to employ a fairly circumscribed
set of criteria for sample selection. As I describe below, I limited participation in the
study to a relatively homogenous group of research subjects by controlling for several
important demographic variables. Doing so allowed me to maintain my commitment to
a loosely-structured research effort with respect to the issues to be explored by
reducing the number of potential explanations for patterns in the data. Thus, I was able
to satisfy my interest in casting a wide “issues" net by limiting myself to a fairly
homogenous section of the sea.
Overview of the Research Design
The central research questions of this dissertation regard the relationship
between class and the character and meaning of individuals’ experiences as
consumers. Similar to the numerous studies of workers and their experiences in the
realm of production, this study is aimed at developing a better understanding of the
experiences of individuals as consumers. Partly because this dissertation is directed at
largely unexplored terrain, the research was designed to be exploratory to permit
consideration of a wide array of analytic themes.1
1 Since the time of data collection (i.e., 1995) a number of empirically-based research efforts on
similar issues have appeared. Prominent among these is that of Miller (1998) and Miller et al.
18
Given the research agenda, I employed an ethnographic-style methodology,
relying primarily on in-depth interviews and participant observation. Interviews were
conducted with twenty-nine adults from eighteen households. In addition to these
interviews, the members of five of the eighteen families participated in more intense
observation and interviewing. I accompanied each of these families on several
shopping trips, meeting them in their homes and traveling with them to and from the
shops. As I discuss below, my own research with these five families was bolstered by
data collected for another ethnographic research project in which they had recently
participated.
The Sample
The eighteen households included in the study are located in adjacent
communities of a major northeastern (US) city. Of the eighteen households, six are
upper-middle class, seven are working class and five are working class poor. Twelve
families in the study are two-parent/caregiver households and seven are single-parent
homes. In the two-parent/caregiver households, each parent/caregiver participated in
the study. In the single-parent homes, only the present parent was included. Though
children were not interviewed, they were often present during my own fieldwork with
the families and were central to the previous research in which those families
participated. In total, twenty-nine adults from eighteen households participated in the
research.2
(1998), both stemming from research conducted in Britain. See also Gregson and Crewe
(1997), Clarke (1998), and Falk and Campbell (1997).
2 The unit of analysis in the dissertation is alternately the individual (e.g., Artie Fallon) and the
household (e.g., the Fallon family).
19
Sample Specifications
Parental Status and Other Lifecourse Variables
Each family in the study has at least one child between the ages of five and
fourteen.3 By limiting the sample in this way, I sought to control, in some measure, for
lifecourse effects.4 In particular, by limiting the study to parents with school-aged
children, I was able to define a group of individuals grappling with roughly similar
issues in terms of basic categories of purchase (e.g., clothes for growing children).
Doing so helped to control for lifecourse factors and allowed for clearer analysis of the
role of class in acquisition processes.
Tables 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 indicate the age of each respondent in the study, by
class. The average age of upper-middle class respondents (see Table 2.1) is thirty-
nine. This is slightly higher than the average of thirty-seven for both working class and
working class poor respondents (see Tables 2.2 and 2.3). With few exceptions,
however, virtually all participants in the study were bom within the “baby boom" years
of 1950 and 1964. The average age of the overall sample (i.e., adult respondents) is
thirty-eight.
Also indicated in these tables is the number and ages of children in each
household. These data indicate that there are not large differences by class in the
3 In sixteen households the child(ren) live(s) in the household with the adults in the study. In two
households, the children live with the respondents’ former spouses. In both cases, the adults in
the study have frequent contact with their children, with weekly visits the norm. In one case, the
parent spends each weekend with the child.
4 “Lifecourse" issues are known to have an important influence on consumption patterns. In

particular, consumer research shows that age, marital, and parental status have an important
influence on buying patterns (Okvisit and Shaw 1989). At a most basic level, the needs of
individuals differ at different life stages. Newlyweds, for example, often need furniture, cookware
and other basic items for the home. Senior citizens, on the other hand are less likely to be
engaged in such purchasing.
20
Table 2.1 Household Composition, Upper-Middle Class Households
Heads of Household Age Two-Parent or Number of Children in

Single Parent? Household (Ages)*
Dexter
Cindy 33 T-P 3 (8, 5, 2)
Dave 30
Hopewell
Peggy 42 T-P 5 (1 4 ,1 1 ,9 ,4 , 3)
George 44
Lawton
Jane 40 T-P 4 (1 7 ,1 5 ,1 1 ,9 )
Tom 39
Mandel
Lori 35 T-P 3(8, 5, 1)
Steve 35
Parkin
Jill 46 S-P 1 (14)**
Tallinger
Don 41 T-P 3(1 1,8 , 5)
Louise 41
* Although the difference between being four years old and four and a half years old may be
meaningful in developmental terms (as well, perhaps with regards to entrance into pre-school
programs) for the sake of simplicity, in this table I list all children's ages in whole numbers. In
those instances where parents reported their child’s age in half-year terms I list their age at their
last birthday.
** Jill had another child who died ten years ago at the age of two.
21
Table 2.2 Household Composition, Working Class Households
Heads of Household Age Two-Parent or Single Number of Children in

Parent? Household (Ages)*
Caldwell
Eileen 46 S-P 3(25,17,11)**
Estobar
Randi 41 S-P 3 (11,9, 7)
Fallon
Debbie 35 T-P 3 (1 4,1 1,1 )
Artie 27
Gaskel
Mary Ellen 38 T-P 3(14, 13, 10)
Ray 41
Robertson
Sandy 32 T-P 4(8, 7,3, 2)
Mike 37
Stevens
Terri 41 S-P 2 (9,8)
Yanelli
Linda 38 T-P 2(22, 11)
Bill 34
programs) for the sake of simplicity, in this table I list all children’s ages in whole numbers. In
last birthday.
** Eileen’s twenty-five year-old son lives with the family on only a part-time basis. He is engaged
and lives primarily with his fiancd.
22
Table 2.3 Household Composition, Working Class Poor Households
Heads of Household Age Two-Parent or Single Number of Children in

Parent? Household (Ages)*
Conti
Mary 33 S-P 3(16, 10,4)
DeStefano
Janet 41 S-P 4 ( 1 8 , 16, 14, 12)**
Greeley
Stephanie 38 T-P 3 (1 1 ,8 , 6)
Graham (Mom's) 42
Naughton
Diane 24 T-P 2 (9, 8)***
Gerald 33
Warner
Frank 46 S-P 1 (13)***
programs) for the sake of simplicity, in this table I list all children’s ages in whole numbers. In
last birthday.
** Janet DeStefano has two other children who are adults (ages twenty-four and twenty-two) and
do not live at home. Of Janet’s four “at-home" children, only two were living with her on a full
time basis at the time of data collection. Janet’s eighteen year-old son was living with her brother
in another community several hours drive from Janet’s home. However, he was visiting her
during the time of data collection and was contemplating moving back home. In addition, Janet’s
fourteen year-old son was at that time residing in a state institution for youth. Janet was not
certain when he would be released but knew it would be months (rather than weeks) away.
*** In these households, the children are non-custodial. See footnote no. 3 for further details.
23
number of children in the families in the study. Upper-middle class families average
3.17 children, working class families average 2.86 and working class poor families
average 3. The range within categories varies with a low of one and high of five in the
upper-middle class category, a low of two and high of four in the working class
category and a low of one and high of six in the working class poor family. Again,
differences in this regard across class groups appeared to be neither large nor
consistent enough to meaningfully skew the sample.
Households or Individuals?
By including both partners (in two-parent households) I was able to explore
issues of acquisition, both at the level of the individual and at the level of the
household. Numerous studies have demonstrated the dangers of presuming that one
household member’s experiences can speak for all (e.g., Pahl 1989). At the same
time, however, issues of consumption and acquisition can, indeed, be said to play out
at the level of the household. Certainly all couples living under the same roof must, in
some measure, react to one another with respect to issues of spending and
acquisition. While it might have been possible to understand a respondent’s
experiences without also talking to his/her partner, a more complete picture of the
household context was developed by including both.
Class
Since my primary aim in this research is to see the effects of class (on
acquisition practices) I elected to include in the study individuals from distinct class
groups. As Rubin (1976) reasoned in her study of family life, when one’s interests are
in seeing how class affects people’s lives and the differences it creates, it is “simple
24
good sense...to compare widely disparate groups in the hope of highlighting those
differences" (1976:9).5 Furthermore, because the present research is not directed at
reconciling arguments over the precise character of class groups, I elected to restrict
my sample to individuals from upper-middle class, working class, and working class
poor households. In doing so, I set aside debates over the precise boundaries around
the “middle middle" or “lower middle" class and focus instead on what are widely
agreed upon class divisions.6
5 Rubin’s study was primarily focused on the “stably employed white working class (1976:9)."
However, in an effort to better understand the effects of class position on the experiences of
individuals in that group, Rubin also included in her study analysis of “the professional middle
class."
6 This is certainly true with respect to the upper-middle class/working class split. As I discuss
further below, whether or not the poor respondents in my study are part a class that is distinct
from the (more general) working class is disputable.
In recent years, scholars of class have been particularly focused on the “problem” of the
middle classes. The expansion during the twentieth century of well-paid, salaried, white collar
positions has posed a problem, especially for Marxian scholars. Marx viewed class primarily in
terms of a dichotomy between those who own the means of production and those who sell their
labor for wages (Marx 1977; Marx and Engels 1968). Marx’s model did not provide a way of
differentiating between workers whose situations are, in many ways, strikingly different.
Neo-Marxians have put forth a variety of theoretically-based strategies for grappling with
these issues. Some, like Poulantzas (1975) have suggested that workers can be divided into
classes based on economic factors (whether their labor is productive or unproductive), political
matters (whether work is of a supervisory or non-supervisory nature) and on ideological grounds
(whether work is of a mental or manual nature). Alternatively, Wright (1985) argues that the
most important concept in differentiating classes is the issue of exploitation. He argues that
although all workers are exploited (by capital) some possess productive assets which result in
their exploiting other workers. The productive assets held by workers in these “contradictory
locations” are skill assets (in particular, those skills artificially restricted by credentials) and/or
organization assets (control over the coordination of labor).
Some “critics” have suggested that such re-workings of Marx’s class model amount to
tacit acceptance of Weberian tenets of class in particular, and stratification more generally (e.g.,
Bum's 1988). Indeed, while Wright makes a persuasive case regarding the importance of
skills/credentials and the ability of some workers to control and coordinate labor (what Weber
would see as regarding power and the “market situation” of workers), he is less convincing with
regards to the exploitative nature of these factors. Indeed, scholars such as Goldthorpe (1987),
working in the Weberian tradition, operationalize class in ways that are in effect, generally
compatible with those of Wright Goldthorpe’s model is based on the “work situation” (conditions
of work, including issues of autonomy, authority and control) and “market situation” (“chances”
as Weber would have it in the labor market). In broad form, the resultant scheme distinguishes
the “service" classes (e.g., professionals, administrators and officials, supervisors of non-manual
employees) from the “intermediate” classes (e.g., lower grade technicians, supervisors of
25
Hence, the study includes upper-middle class, working class and working class
poor respondents. These categories are differentiated according to occupational and
educational characteristics. Respondents in the upper-middle class category all have
bachelor’s degrees and many hold advanced degrees, as well (see Table 2.4). The
upper-middle class category consists of professionals and high level administrators
and managers.7There are six families in this category.
In the working class group (consisting of seven families), respondents work in
blue collar and routine service occupations (see Table 2.5). These include an
eldercare worker, a clerical worker, a semi-skilled laborer and a tow-truck driver. Most
of these respondents holds a high school diploma, although some have additional
credentials and, in one household, neither adult completed high school.
Employed respondents in the working class poor category hold jobs similar to
those of the working class (e.g., mini-van driver, convenience store clerk) (see Table
2.6). Most of these respondents either lack a high school diploma or have received a
General Equivalency Diploma. As implied by the term “working class poor" while these
respondents do share common ground with the working class (see Chapter Three),
other dimensions set them apart. For one, the relationship of these workers to the
manual workers) and the “working" classes (e.g., skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled manual
workers).
Thus, despite theoretical differences, there is, nevertheless, a fair degree of
compatibility between various models (such as those of Wright and Goldthorpe) in terms of the
resultant groupings of workers (Crompton 1993:121-126). With regards to the present research,
those respondents which I have placed in the upper-middle class category, for example, would
be widely accepted as being members of a different class group than those in either the working
class or working class poor category.
7 In each upper-middle class family in which one partner (i.e., the woman) does not work for pay
but cares for her family full-time, the education and, in relevant cases, occupational experience
of these respondents are consistent with those of their partner. As a result, assigning a
household-wide class position is certainly warranted.
26
Table 2.4 Education and Occupation, Upper-middle Class Households
Household Education Occupation
Dexter
Cindy B.S. (elite public university) Engineer
Dave M.S. (elite public university) Administrator, Non-Profit Organization
Hopewell
Peggy B.A. (private college) Family Caregiver (unpaid)
George M.B.A. (elite public university) Business Executive
Mandel
Lori B.S. (elite private university) Family Caregiver (unpaid) *
Steve B.S. (public university) Optician/Small Business Owner
Lawton
Jane B.A. (elite private university) Family Caregiver (unpaid)
Tom J.D., L.L.M., (elite private Attorney (partner)
university)
Parkin
Jill B A (public university) Educational Consultant
Tallinger
Louise B.A. (elite private university) Advertising Executive
Don B.A. (elite private university) Public Relations Manager
* Lori Mandel works on informal, part-time basis for the family business. She receives no direct
compensation.
27
Table 2.5 Education and Occupation, Working Class Households
Household Education Occupation
Caldwell
Eileen High School Receptionist*
Estobar
Randi High School Eldercare Worker**
Fallon
Debbie High School Clerical Worker
Artie High School Hospital Groundskeeper/
Maintenance Worker
Gaskel
Mary Ellen A.S. Family Caregiver; Dental Hygienist
(p-t)—
Ray High School; Technical School Tow-Truck Driver (municipal
employee)
Robertson
Sandy High School Family Caregiver (unpaid)
Mike High School Sewage Treatment Facility Worker
Stevens
Terri High School (some junior college) Waitress; House Cleaner
Yanelli
Linda 10th Grade Landscape and Cleaning Worker
Bill 10th Grade Painter (Commercial and
Residential)
* At the time of data collection, Eileen had just completed her final week with the company for
which she worked for over twenty-five years. Eileen’s position had been terminated as part of a
large-scale “downsizing” effort. For further details see notes in Table 2.11.
**Randi also works on a seasonal basis for a retailer preparing fruit baskets and other gift items.
In addition, she works for an answering service on Saturday afternoons.
***With an Associate’s Degree and a job as a dental hygenist, it may be said that Mary Ellen
Gaskel would better be considered a member of the lower middle class than working class.
However, Mary Ellen considers herself a full-time “stay at home mom” and sees her husband
Ray as the family breadwinner. Ray is proudly “blue-collar.” Mary Ellen’s work as a dental
hygenist is only part-time. She works every other weekend. In addition to this work, she does
some house cleaning and babysitting “on the side” to earn extra money. During my discussions
with both Mary Ellen and Ray, it was evident to me that each viewed themselves (and their
family) as “working people” (Halle 1984).
28
Table 2.6 Education and Occupation, Working Class Poor Households
Household Education Occupation*
Conti
Mary 11th Grade Van Driver (part-time)
DeStefano
Janet 9th Grade [Waitress, part-time]
Greeley
Stephanie High School (some junior college) Soup Kitchen “Crew Chief
Graham 12th Grade [General Laborer]
Naughton
Diane High School (G.E.D) Clerk (Convenience Store)
Gerald High School (G.E.D); some Technical [Semi-skilled Laborer]
School
Warner
Frank A.A.** [General Laborer]
* For unemployed respondents, the most recent (or usual) type of work is listed in brackets.
** Frank Warner received his general high-school equivalency diploma and A.A. while serving a
prison term.
labor market is more tenuous than that of the working class respondents. These
workers have unstable work histories characterized by long periods of unemployment
or involuntary part-time work. For some, this is a result of health factors (including drug
and alcohol abuse as well as injuries sustained directly on the job). For others
(primarily women), this stems from the difficulties associated with raising a family
single-handedly. A second factor distinguishing these respondents from those in the
working class category is their reliance on public assistance. Each is currently
receiving some type of public assistance such as food stamps, housing subsidies, Aid
29
to Families with Dependent Children, and/or medical assistance.8
My decision to include the poor in the study was motivated by an interest in
seeing how consumers who rely on small incomes (as the poor by definition would)
approach commodity markets to obtain goods. Indeed, by including the poor I was
assured of being able to see the role of financial resources since, by definition, their
incomes would be lower than the upper-middle class and, presumably, working class
consumers in the study. At the same time, I wanted to be able to compare what were
likely to be a relatively affluent pool of respondents (i.e., the upper-middle class) with
others who were not experiencing an immediate financial crisis or temporary “valley” in
their financial situation (as the poor might be), but who were more or less maintaining
their usual level of financial well-being. Including the poor, the working class and the
upper-middle class in the study allowed me to meet these objectives.
It should be noted that in referring to the poor respondents as “working class
poor” it is my intention to acknowledge the porous boundary between members of this
group and the (more general) working class. As noted above, there is a good deal of
crossover with regards to the types of work experience and levels of education
attributed to respondents in these class categories. Many of the respondents in the
working class category would, at a previous time in their lives, have been considered
poor for the purposes of the study (and vice versa for the working class poor as part of
the “stable” working class). That this would be the case was not entirely clear at the
outset. The poor respondents in the present study are not part of a chronically poor
“underclass” (Wilson 1989), detached from the main of society. Instead, these
8 One working class poor household (the Naughton family) was not at the time of data collection
receiving any state benefit. However, Gerald Naughton was at that time in the process of
30
respondents are in many ways integrated into traditional working class communities
(For further discussion, see Chapter Three).
Race
While gender and class variation is incorporated into the study, limitations on
the size and scope of this dissertation did not permit the inclusion of respondents from
a range of racial/ethnic groups, as well. In order to control for the effects of race, the
sample is restricted to whites.9 Again, with a study of this size, the inclusion of too
many variables would necessarily divide the sample in a way that would make the
effects of group membership on individuals’ experiences difficult to discern. It should
be clear, however, that limiting the sample to whites does not mean that “race" issues
fail to play a role. As social scientists have increasingly come to acknowledge, the
advantages (or, at least, lack of disadvantage) associated with membership in the
dominant group constitute “racial effects.” Though the invisibility of privilege makes its
study difficult, this does not mean that it is absent.10
applying for medical coverage and he and his wife were considering applying for food stamps
(for which they were eligible).
9 One participant in the study (Graham Morris) is African-American. Graham lives with Stephanie
Greeley and her three children. The Greeleys are white. The Greeley family participated in Dr.
Lareau's ethnographic research project and was selected for inclusion in the present study for
that reason.
10 A number of sources point to differences between blacks and whites with respect to
consumption issues. For a discussion of black/white purchasing patterns see, for example.
Moms 1993. Feagin (1991) considers the experiences of middle class blacks in a variety of
public settings, including retail stores. Other studies point to differences in the prices consumers
pay for certain purchases (e.g., Ayres 1991 on automobile purchasing).
31
Geographic Area
The families included in the study reside in adjacent communities in a large
northeastern (US) metropolitan area. Given the de facto class segregation of housing
in the area -and the nation more generally- it was not possible to choose a single
neighborhood for the study. Nonetheless, the housing patterns in the chosen
communities are not completely class consistent and in several instances working
class, working class poor and upper-middle class families in the study reside within a
few blocks of one another.
With few exceptions, however, the working class and working class poor
respondents reside in the communities of Richmond or West Richmond.11 Richmond is
a predominantly white working class community that straddles the city and the nearby
suburbs. The hilly neighborhood is dominated by small row houses and, where they
exist, tiny garden plots. The local shopping district is scattered over several blocks
along a main avenue. Retailers operating in the heart of this area include a bridal
shop, a check cashing outlet, a photography shop, a ladies apparel store, and a small
supermarket. A Farmer’s Market operates out of one of the storefronts on a part-time
basis. A few blocks away from the main block of stores is a chain drug store, a chain
video shop and a larger supermarket.
The community of West Richmond has a spirit that combines urban and
suburban living. Here, small row homes combine with larger but still modest dwellings.
West Richmond’s “shopping district” also runs along a main avenue. This
predominantly residential street has a scattered array of retailers including a
11 The names of the research communities as well as respondents’ names and other identifying
information have been changed to protect the anonymity of those participating in the research.
32
supermarket, a thrift store, a convenience store, and a check cashing facility, as well
as few pizza restaurants and sandwich shops. There is a busy coin-operated laundry
directly across from the supermarket. West Richmond residents have easy access to a
nearby strip mall that includes a discount clothing store, a chain drug store, a variety
store and a (larger) supermarket.
Sylvan, a predominately upper-middle class community is just south of the
Richmond communities. Made up of several semi-urban and suburban neighborhoods,
Sylvan has a small-town feel to it, despite its proximity to the city center. Virtually all of
the homes in Sylvan are detached and many have large lawns. Swimming pools are
not an uncommon sight in the backyards of Sylvan homes. Sylvan’s shopping district,
located in the neighborhood of Cedar Falls, includes both national chain stores (e.g.,
clothing stores, a toy store) and locally-owned small businesses (e.g., hobby shops, a
florist, a hardware store).
Residing in these adjacent communities, all of the families in the study live
within an approximately five mile radius of one another, most in greater proximity than
that. By limiting the sample to residents of neighboring communities, I was able to
control to a great extent the effects of location by ensuring that families in the study
would have physical access to the same shops. Although each community has
separate (albeit, small) shopping districts, virtually all respondents in the study drive to
locations outside of their neighborhood’s central shopping strip for the vast majority of
their purchases. A wide array of discount stores, electronics outlets, shopping malls
and the like are located a short distance from the Richmond and Sylvan communities
(see further discussion in Chapter Eight). Each household in the study owns at least
33
one automobile.12 Though most residents of these areas rely on automobiles for
transportation, local bus service is available.
In short, the study includes white parents with at least one child between the
ages of five and fourteen, residing in adjacent neighborhoods of a major northeastern
city. About one third of the households are single-parent. The respondents are from
upper-middle class, working class, and working class poor backgrounds.
Sample Selection
Respondents were located through a number of strategies. The five families
participating in the fieldwork portion of the research (the Fallons, the Greeleys, the
Hopewells, the Tallingers, and the Yanellis) had recently participated in another, larger
study about family life conducted by Dr. Annette Lareau (see below). Dr. Lareau
requested permission from these respondents for me to contact them regarding
participation in my study. In addition, she asked for permission to share with me
materials from her ethnographic study. Five families complied with her request and
ultimately agreed to participate in the present research. One of the families refused to
participate and was replaced with another, similarly situated family from Dr. Lareau’s
study.13
12 Automobile ownership was not a criteria for sample selection.
13 Multiple reasons were offered by this prospective respondent for refusing to participate in the
present research. Perhaps most importantly, at the time these respondents were contacted
there were newspaper reports (as well as informal rumors) that the corporation for which the
husband/father in this family worked was planning to reduce the size of its management staff
considerably. Having just received this news, he and his wife were somewhat preoccupied with
it. In addition, the respondent indicated that her children were enrolled in a wide range of
activities which meant that the family's schedule was particularly chaotic at this time. It may also
be noteworthy that the easy rapport Dr. Lareau and her team of researchers were able to
develop with essentially every other family participating in their intensive research never quite
took hold with this family. Reasons for this are not entirely apparent.
34
Locating the remaining thirteen families was more challenging. Participation in
the study meant agreeing to be interviewed twice, on separate occasions. In two-
parent families this meant four separate interview sessions for the household. In
locating prospective respondents, I was concerned about my inability to offer even a
token gesture of gratitude for their time. To combat this, I provided each respondent
with a gift of twenty dollars for their cooperation. By offering this gift of appreciation, I
hoped to acknowledge in a small way the assistance respondents gave me.
Rather than rely on any one approach for locating the remaining families, I
worked from a variety of contact points, including distant personal contacts, flyer
postings, and referrals from community organizations. I posted flyers in public areas
such as libraries, laundromats, supermarkets, bus stops, and public parks. Predictably,
this strategy was most effective with poor respondents, though not exclusively so.
Personal contacts proved extremely helpful in locating respondents. Though I
was not native to the region, I had personally resided in an area near the research
sites for two years. Having numerous friends and acquaintances in the area, I asked
people I knew if they had an acquaintance who could provide a referral. Using this
method -rather than going directly through my own friends and acquaintances- served
to insure greater distance between the respondents and myself, thus reducing
concerns about confidentiality. Given my own class location/biography, this strategy
was most helpful in locating upper-middle class families, but did result in finding at
least one family in each class category.
A Note on Financial Resources: How Distant from Necessity?
Information on respondents’ financial-resource holdings (e.g., income, property
holdings) was not collected at the time of screening and was not part of sample
35
selection.14 Nevertheless, the relationships between class categories and such
resources proved to be important factors delineating class groups. In other words,
while I did not define class groups through financial-resource measures, such
resources generally fall along class lines. Given that financial resources are integral to
the transactions that I study, the correlation between class and access to financial
resources is notable. Moreover, given Bourdieu’s focus on the “material conditions of a
class condition" and “distance from necessity” (see Chapter One) it is important to
understand the varying financial resources to which those individuals who took part in
the present research possess. Thus, before moving on to further discussion of my
methodology, I discuss below the strong relationship between class and financial
resources in the present sample.
Income
Not surprisingly, annual income in virtually all upper-middle class households in
the sample far exceeds that of both working class and working class poor families (see
Tables 2.7, 2.8, and 2.9). Both the small number of households in each category, as
well as the wide income range -especially the case for the upper-middle class group-
make the use of average figures unhelpful. It is noteworthy, however, that five out of
the six upper-middle class households have annual incomes o f over $100,000.
Household incomes for working class families (Table 2.9) were substantially
lower than those in upper-middle class households in virtually all cases. Here, family
incomes were highest at the $45-50,000 mark. In the two instances where families did
14 The exception to this were questions regarding current and previous receipt of public
assistance. This information was used to determine whether a prospective respondent was
currently experiencing material hardship and would be eligible for the “working class poor”
category.
36
Table 2.7 Annual Household Income, Upper-middle Class Households
(Figures are in 1995 US dollars)
Household Household Income from Other Regular Notes

(Number of Size Work Income
Earners)
Dexter (2) 5 $105K Includes regular

bonuses
Hopewell (1) 7 $180K
Lawton (1) 6 (+ live-in $900K Includes regular

grandmother) bonuses
Mandel (1+)* 5 $125K
Parkin (1 )** 2 $ 15K $1 OK child

support;
$15K rental
property
Tallinger (2) 5 $175K
* Lori Mandel works on informal, part-time basis for family business. She receives no direct
compensation.
** Two years prior to the period of data collection, Jill Parkin had resigned under pressure from
her position as a private-sector educational administrator. In that capacity she earned $80,000
per year. In addition, to the sources of income noted above the respondent owns her home
outright which includes two rental properties, one of which was vacant at the time of data
collection.
achieve annual incomes in this range, they relied upon two full-time earners. Single-
earner families, particularly those headed by women (i.e., Caldwell, Estobar, and
Stevens), had significantly lower incomes, ranging from $15,000 to $25,000 per year.
In working class poor households, incomes were still lower in virtually all cases.
The figures in Table 2.9 show that annual incomes in these households generally
amounted to about $10-15,000, including state benefits in the form of cash (for
example, Survivor’s Benefits, Emergency County Assistance), Food Stamps, and (in
37
Table 2.8 Annual Household Income, Working Class Households
Household Household Income from Other Regular Notes

(Number of Size Work Income
Earners)
Caldwell (1) 3 (+ older, $25K

part-time
resident son)
Estobar (1) 4 S15-20K $600/month child Income from work is

support net
(intermittent)
Fallon (2) 5 S45-50K $7,140 Survivor's Includes regular

Benefits bonuses
(children aged 14
and 11)
Gaskel (1+)* 5 $40K Includes regular non

taxed “side jobs”
Robertson 6 S30-35K Up to $10,000/year

(1) overtime pay
Stevens (1) 3 $25K
Yanelli (2) 3 (+ older, full S45-50K

time resident
son)
* Mary Ellen Gaskel works part-time every other weekend.
38
Table 2.9 Annual Household Income, Working Class Poor Households
Household Household Income Other Regular Income Notes

(Number of Size from Work
Earners)
Conti 4 $9,000 $3,600 child support Also receives

$2,000 Food Stamps housing subsidy
(semi-regular)
DeStefano* 3 $800 $9,600 Survivor’s Benefits

(children aged 16,14, and
12)
$1,800 Food Stamps
Greeley** 5 (+ two non $18-20,000 $1,500 Food Stamps Also receives

custodial $9,600 Worker’s housing subsidy
children) Compensation**
Naughton 2 (+ two non $10,800 Also receives

custodial monthly loans for
children) rent ($450) and
car insurance
($200) from kin
Warner 1 (+ one non <$10,000 $162/month County Current income

custodial Emergency Assistance; from work derives
child) $130/month Food Stamps from irregular
informal
employment
* Janet DeStefano has two school-age children living at home. The DeStefanos live rent-free
with Janet’s deceased (common-law) husband’s mother. In addition, Janet has an 18-year old
son who currently lives with her brother at a distance away and a 14-year old son who at the
time of the fieldwork resided at a state youth facility.
** The Greeley family has a significantly higher income than others in the working class poor
category, particularly with regard to income from work. This family relies almost exclusively upon
the earnings of one member (Stephanie Greeley) and state benefits awarded to Stephanie and
her three children (i.e., Food Stamps, a Section 8 housing subsidy). Stephanie has not informed
her case worker or other state officials that her boyfriend, Graham Morris, lived with the family.
She does not intend to do so. At the time of data collection, Graham was receiving
approximately $800 per month in Worker's Compensation. Most of those funds, however, were
not available to the Greeley family. About $240 is deducted from that amount per month in fees
charged by the attorney handling Graham’s injury case, in addition, Graham partially supports
his two teenage sons who live with their grandmother in another state. Graham sends $300 to
her each month.
39
one instance) regularly-received child support. Though not included in income figures,
state housing subsidies (Conti and Greeley families), in-kind gifts (DeStefano family),
or regular family loans (Naughton family) provide additional, regular support to these
households. (See further discussion below. Also see Chapter Three for discussion of
state benefits and their relationship to working class poor standards of living).
For both the sample respondents and Americans more generally income from
work or state benefits form the bedrock of monies relied upon for accessing market
goods (see also Sherraden, 1991:125-129).15 That such income is correlated with
class categories is an important component of the relationship between class and
consumers’ access to market goods. Nonetheless, income is but one aspect of a
household’s financial profile. As such, it is an inadequate yardstick on which to rely to
understand a household’s overall ability to obtain market goods. As researchers,
particularly those evaluating the situation of the poor, have increasingly come to
recognize income tells us little about a household's (or individual’s) financial health or
the extent to which they are able to participate in commodity markets (Mayer and
Jencks 1989; Sherraden 1991). Sherraden, for example, argues that we must adopt a
more expansive definition if we are to undertake an accurate assessment of material
well-being. He contends that income comparisons on their own underestimate the true
extent of inequality because assets are more unevenly distributed across class-linked
categories.
Sherradan (1991:100-105) offers a typology that can be usefully adapted to
expand our understanding of the various financial resources that affect people's
15 While the vast majority of people depend on income to meet their consumption requirements,
the wealthiest individuals rely on assets for these purposes. Indeed, this in part is what
differentiates more ordinary households from the most affluent (see Sherraden, 1991:125-129).
40
position relative to commodity markets. He differentiates assets in terms of their
tangibility and intangibility. In the tangible classification he includes money savings;
stocks, bonds, and other securities; real property (including owner-occupied dwellings);
production machines and equipment; durable household goods; natural resources
(e.g., farmland, timberland); and intellectual property (e.g., patents and copyrights).
The intangible classification consists of access to credit and a wide range of indirect
and non-financial forms of capital including human capital, cultural capital, social
capital (both formal and informal), and political capital. Below I abstract relevant
portions of this typology to highlight the broader array of financial resources available
to respondents in the study. I focus primarily on tangible resources in this discussion.
Of the intangible resources outlined by Sherraden I limit my discussion to the issue of
access to credit.16
Monetary Assets
In Tables 2.10, 2.11, and 2.12 I summarize the monetary assets held by
respondents as organized by class groups. Working class (Table 2.11) and working
class poor (Table 2.12) households generally hold no stocks, bonds, or other
securities. A few working class respondents have small stock holdings (less than
$5,000) obtained through employment-related benefits packages (e.g., retirement
16 In my view the extent to which access to credit can be considered an intangible resource is
arguable. There exist two principal forms of credit: institutionalized credit and non
institutionalized credit. The former category includes mortgageability, credit cards, lines of credit,
and overdraft protection while the latter classification comprises credit derived from family
members or other informal sources. While the informal/non-institutionalized forms of credit can
easily be viewed as intangible (depending, for example, on the current state of relations with
extended family members) lines of credit such as those available through credit cards are, in my
estimation, of a more tangible nature. Indeed, once such a credit account has been granted by
the creditor it is in many ways as tangible as cash holdings. Accessing those funds is essentially
immediate and unstipulated.
41
Table 2.10 Monetary Assets, Upper-middle Class Households
(Approximate figures)
Household Cash (Savings Stocks, Bonds Retirement Other

and Checking and Other Funds
Accounts) Securities
Dexter Not less than $0 $24K Just sold $10Kin

S1-5K securities to pay off
credit card debt;
receives $4-5K
annually from
grandmother
Hopewell $10K $600K $30K IRAs; Children have various

$250K savings accounts in
retirement plan their own names
Lawton $40K $750K No specific $ 1200/year income

funds from inherited bond
Mandel $5K $20K $0 Own two retail stores

(one outright); $750K
life insurance policy
Parkin Unknown $0 (sold to buy $25K Owns home outright

house)
Tallinger Not less than $1-5K $0

$500
42
Table 2.11 Monetary Assets, Working Class Households
and checking and Other Funds
accounts or in- Securities
house)
Caldwell* $0-500 $5,000 $0 Severance settlement

pending
Estobar** $2,500; $0 $0
$12,000 CD
Fallon $50-$ 1200 $0 $2,500 (IRAs) $600 in savings bonds

for children
Gaskel $4-6000; CDs $0 Pension plan

of unknown with proceeds
value keyed to tenure
and other
conditions of
employment
Robertson $20 $0 $2,000
Stevens $0-50 $0 $0
Yanelli $0-50 $0 $0
* Eileen Caldwell was not certain whether or not the approximately $5,000 she holds in company
stock provided to her by the utility company she worked for is part of a retirement fund. When I
contacted Eileen for the interview she was still working for that company but was completing her
tenure there as part of a large reduction in the company’s workforce. Eileen’s union was at that
time negotiating a severance settlement for workers subject to dismissal. Having worked for the
company for over 25 years, it was her understanding that in the near future she would receive
between $22,500-50,000 in severance pay. Half of that amount would be paid to her in one lump
sum and the other half would be paid in monthly installments over the course of the following
four years.
** As part of her divorce settlement Randi Estobar received sole ownership of a house which
had been given to she and her husband by his mother. After paying some outstanding debts with
the proceeds of the sale, she applied a large portion of the money to acquire a new house in a
superior school district and obtained an unconventional mortgage for the balance of the price.
The balance of the proceeds from the sale of her first house is invested in CDs and she relies
upon these funds to cover the bulk of her current monthly mortgage expenses.
43
Table 2.12 Monetary Assets, Working Class Poor Households

and checking and Other Funds
accounts or in- Securities
house)
Conti $0 $0 $0 Lawsuit pending*
DeStefano $0 $0 $0
Greeley $100 $0 $0 Lawsuit pending*
Naughton $0 $0 $0 Lawsuit pending*
Warner $0 $0 $0
* Mary Conti’s lawsuit regarded a back injury sustained in an automobile accident. She expected
to receive approximately $25,000 in the suit. Graham Morris (Stephanie Greeley's live-in
boyfriend) and Gerald Naughton were both hurt while at work in manual labor occupations. Both
were uncertain as to what compensation (if any) would result from their respective suits.
funds, profit-sharing plans), but no working class or working class poor respondent of
their own initiative invests in the stock or bond markets or purchases other kinds of
securities.
By contrast, all upper-middle class households have monies invested in the
financial markets. In some cases, these holdings are quite considerable, amounting to
hundreds of thousands of dollars. Others have more modest investment accounts in
the $20-25,000 range. In some instances, upper-middle class respondents had, at the
time of data collection, recently sold substantial portions of their portfolios to relieve
heavy debts (e.g., Dexter, Tallinger). Some families have more modest securities
holdings because they have diverted most of their surplus funds to other investment
purposes. For example, the Mandels have only recently begun to invest in mutual
44
funds as they were previously utilizing their savings for business ventures and in
building home equity. In this case, the family is quickly accumulating significant stock
holdings by investing close to $8,000 each year.
Not all of these investments are easily accessible to these respondents. In
particular, investments made as part of 401K retirement plans -whereby both the
employer and employee commonly make contributions- can only be withdrawn without
penalty under “hardship” circumstances. However, such situations include a rather
wide range of exigencies such as medical expenses, the downpayment on a principal
residence, immediate tuition costs (for higher education), and mortgage payments
when foreclosure is imminent. Moreover, employers are themselves able to grant
penalty-free access to these funds based on the “facts and circumstances” of the
individual case (Sherraden 1991:141). Thus, although designed to be accessed in later
life, retirement funds constitute a pool of monies that can, in a variety of
circumstances, be utilized in the current period. As with other vehicles for securities
investment these resource holdings are both more widespread and of larger
magnitude in upper-middle class households in the study, relative to the working class.
None of the working class poor families have any securities investments (see Table
2 . 12).17
In addition to these forms of investment, upper-middle class families also more
sizable reserves of cash-on-hand than do the working class and working class poor.
Upper-middle class families generally have a cushion of at least $500 to $1000 of non
designated monies available at all times in (readily accessible) cash. Most of these
17 One respondent, Stephanie Greeley had a small retirement fund provided by her employer.
She was not aware of its details (e.g., whether it was a 401K or otherwise accessible pool of
monies) but was confident that it was “not a lot.”
45
families reported having several thousands of dollars of “savings" in their checking
accounts at any given time. Working class poor families had no such buffer. Although
one family in this category reported having about $100 in a savings account, most of
these families had no savings or “money cushion” of any kind. Similarly, working class
families often had no money beyond that necessary to meet current bills and
expenses. One household, the Gaskels, did have large amounts of savings on-hand at
various times throughout the year. These savings, however, were designated for
current, private-school tuition fees and were depleted when the bills came due.
Similarly, other working class families sometimes saved monies over the course of
several weeks or months toward a specific anticipated expense (e.g., automobile
insurance, Christmas gifts), but these monies generally had a predetermined
destination and were not available at all times.
Credit Access
In addition to financial investments and cash savings, access to and use of
institutionalized credit in the form of credit cards also varies by class.18 Again, upper-
middle class consumers were in the strongest position in this regard. As shown in
Table 2.13, upper-middle class families had considerable access to both bank and
retail credit cards. Accounts held by these families amounted to several thousands of
dollars of credit, often over $10,000. With the exception of the Dexter family, none of
the upper-middle class households in the study earned any significant credit-card debt.
Upper-middle class families used their cards largely for convenience (e.g., to avoid
having to withdraw cash) or, in some cases, to reap specific awards. The Mandels and
46
Table 2.13 Status of Credit Accounts, Upper-middle Class Households
(Figures are approximate)
Household Credit Card Total Credit Card Currently Notes

Accounts Available Debt Using
(Bank*/Retail) Credit Cards?
Dexter Multiple/Multiple $150,000 $22,500 Yes
Hopewell 1/1 $10,000 None Yes Also holds credit

card for work
expenses; store
cards stolen and
then voluntarily
canceled
Lawton 2/1 $20,000 None Yes Also holds credit

card for work
expenses;
regularly use
card to
accumulate
airline miles.
Mandel 1/Multiple $2,500+ None Yes Regularly use

card to
accumulate
airline miles.
Parkin 2/6-8 Unknown None Yes
Tallinger 4/3? $4,300- $2,500-3,000 Yes Also holds credit

unlimited card for work-
expenses
* There are two principal forms of credit cards. Bank cards (or “universal" cards) are those
offered by banks and other financial institutions, generally operating under the Visa, Mastercard,
or Discover card name. Also included in this category is American Express. Retailer cards are
firm-specific cards such as those linked to specific department stores, oil companies, or other
retail chains.
18 In this section I focus on credit assets in the form of bank and retail credit accounts. In a
following section on various tangible and intangible assets I discuss other forms of both
institutionalized and non-institutionalized credit.
47
the Lawtons, for example, use their cards with frequency to accrue frequent-flier airline
miles (and thus, receive free travel) keyed to card use.
Although not universally so, most working class consumers in the study also
hold credit card accounts (see Table 2.14). Moreover, these families often had large
credit lines available to them. One family, the Yanellis, estimated that they had
approximately $50,000 worth of aggregate credit. Similarly, Randi Estobar received a
“flood" of credit account solicitations when she recently purchased a home. Randi
estimates that she has close to $20,000 in available credit.
While upper-middle class consumers in the study generally use their cards for
convenience and most paid off their debt each month, the situation for working class
families is strikingly different. Several families in this group who have access to credit
through such accounts have accumulated what they consider to be significant debts
and, as a result, have voluntarily ceased using the cards. These families hold between
$2,400 and $5,600 worth of debt, amounts that most in that situation feel are
essentially unmanageable.19 These respondents are having great difficulty making any
inroads toward payment of the principal due on these accounts. In other households,
respondents have indeed defaulted on outstanding credit card and other types of debt
(e.g., home mortgages) in the past and are, thus, currently unable to access credit
altogether. Hence, most working class consumers in the study were either without
access to credit through bank or retail cards or were, in effect, without such access
due to their unmanageable debts.
19 In one household (the Yanelli family) the husband felt that the family’s debt load was “perfectly
under control" although he agreed with his wife that they could not afford to take on any more
debt. His wife, by contrast did not feel comfortable with their current level of debt. As with other
working class consumers in the study, she did not envision being able to make significant strides
toward reducing her debt in the foreseeable future.
48
Table 2.14 Status of Credit Accounts, Working Class Households

(Bank/Retail)* Credit Cards?
Caldwell None None None Not No access to

Applicable credit due to
previous
defaults.
Estobar 4-5/0 $20,000 $60 Yes Recently
received a
large number
of unsolicited
credit offers
due to home
purchase.
Fallon 1/3-4 $4,800 $4,360 Yes Experienced
great difficulty
to access
initial credit
lines.
Gaskel 1/3 $10,000 $5,600 No
Robertson 1/2 $2,000 $2,400 No Have

destroyed
some credit
cards, but still
carry the debt.
Stevens None None None Not No access to
previous
defaults.
Yanelli Multiple/Multiple $50,000 $3,000 No Obtained initial
lines of credit
through
fraudulent
applications.
T here are two principal forms of credit cards. Bank cards (or “universal" cards) are those
offered by banks and other financial institutions, generally operating under the Visa, Mastercard
retail chains.
49
As depicted in Table 2.15, the situation for working class poor respondents was
slightly different. None of these respondents has access to a (“universal") bank card
(e.g.. Visa, Mastercard) and only two individuals had cards issued by specific retailers.
One respondent (DeStefano) has a modest line of credit with the “Fashion Bug" chain
of women’s clothing and another (Greeley) has recently been approved for a $550
credit line with Sears. Reflecting on previous personal experience, these respondents
were deeply concerned about using the cards and taking on debt they cannot manage.
In fact, each working class poor respondent (and, as noted above, some working class
respondents as well) has at some point in time defaulted on payments to a financial
institution such that they were (or are) denied access to most forms of institutionalized
credit.
Housing Assets
Home ownership is one of the principal ways that Americans accumulate
wealth. Most upper-middle class respondents, through a process of successive home
purchases, have built up substantial amounts of equity in their houses and one has
even managed to acquire two properties free and clear. These relatively affluent
individuals lived in houses that were in most cases valued at several hundreds of
thousands of dollars (see Table 2.16). The least expensive home in this category was
in the $140-150,000 range and one approached one million dollars. Many of the
working class respondents in the study have also achieved the aspiration of home
ownership, although the values of their properties are generally less than those of the
upper-middle class respondents (see Table 2.17). The houses of families in this
category ranged in value from $60-140,000. It is notable however that working class
50
Table 2.15 Status of Credit Accounts, Working Class Poor Households

Bank/Retair Credit Cards?
Conti None None None Not No access to

previous
defaults.
DeStefano 0/1 $150 None No Credit recently

granted after
previous
defaults.
Greeley 0/1 $550 None No Credit recently

granted after
previous
defaults.
Naughton None None None Not No access to

previous
defaults.
Warner None None None Not No access to

previous
defaults.
"There are two principal forms of credit cards. Bank cards (or “universal" cards) are those
offered by banks and other financial institutions, generally operating under the Visa, Mastercard
retail chains.
51
Table 2.16 Housing Assets, Upper-middle Class Households
Household Own Estimated Source of Source of Notes

or Value Downpayment on Downpayment on
Rent Current House First House
Dexter Own $150K Proceeds from $3K gift from her Current house is
previous house parents family’s third
with a contribution home; First house
toward closing purchased 9 years
costs from her ago.
parents
Hopewell Own $650K Proceeds from $3K loan from her Current house
previous house father and $3K gift (purchased 4 years
from his ago) is (at least)*
grandparents the family’s third
home.
Lawton Own S900K $40-50K from $8K loan from her Current house is
previous house father the family’s third
home; First home
purchased 14
years ago.
Mandel Own $400K Proceeds from Savings Current house is

previous house; (at least) * family’s
some money for third home; have
closing costs from lived in current
IRAs house for 4 years.
Parkin Own $140K Gift from parents Not available Owns property
(40-70K) and outright; property
savings** includes two rental
units; also owns
other rental
property outright
valued at$100K.
Tallinger Own S260K Proceeds from Inheritance money Current house is

previous house, (for her first home, (at least)* family’s
savings, and purchased with ex- third home; this
inheritance husband) house purchased
over 7 years ago;
house needs some
repair and
renovation.
* In these cases, information regarding the total number of homes previously purchased was not
obtained. The figures cited reflect the number of homes previously purchased as mentioned by these
respondents in other contexts during data collection.
** Jill Parkin indicated that she was not certain how much money her parents had given her for the
property. “I can't remember, you know, this is the kind of family, I don’t remember if it’s forty thousand or
seventy [dollars]. I just don’t remember because that's the kind of family we are."
52
Table 2.17 Housing Assets, Working Class Households
Household Own or Estimated Source of Source of Notes

Rent Value Downpayment on Downpayment
Current House on First House
Caldwell Rent* Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable
Estobar Own $140K Proceeds from Gift to then

previous house; husband from his
short-term loan mother
from parents for
“earnest money"
Fallon Rent Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable
Gaskel Own S70-80K Savings (about Current house is House bought

$10K) first home owned from
grandparents
(private
financing);
house required
renovation and
repair (e.g.,
termite
problem).
Robertson Own $109K Borrowed from Current house is Home

401K plan ($3K); first home owned ownership
grant from local assistance
home ownership program
assistance imposes penalty
program if house is sold
in < 5 years.
Stevens Rent Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Defaulted on

house 7 years
ago.
Yanelli Own S60K Sold motorcycle for Current house is House

$5K first home owned purchased
within past year;
private financing
obtained
through
neighbor/seller;
house required
extensive
renovation and
repair.
* Eileen Caldwell’s sister owns the house that was willed to her by their parents. Eileen pays no rent to her
sister though she does make minor repairs and pays all utility bills. Eileen notes that she “will never own
the house."
53
Table 2.18 Housing Assets, Working Class Poor Households
Household Own Estimated Source of Source of Notes

or Value Downpayment Downpayment
Rent on Current on First House
House
Conti Rent Not Not applicable Not applicable

applicable
DeStefano Rent* Not Not applicable Not applicable Defaulted on a

applicable mortgage 11
years ago.
Greeley Rent Not Not applicable Not applicable Defaulted on a

applicable mortgage
approximately
4 years ago.
Naughton Rent Not Not applicable Not applicable

applicable
Warner Rent Not Not applicable Not applicable

applicable
* Janet DeStefano currently resides rent-free in a house owned by her (live-in) mother-in-law.
Janet does not have her own room in the house and sleeps either on the living room couch or,
when her sons are away, in their bunk beds.
homeowners did not normally acquire their residences at prevailing market prices or
with conventional financing and most purchases were the outcome of a variety of
“special circumstances." For instance, the Gaskels bought their current house from
Mary Ellen’s grandparents who then took back a mortgage on the property. The
Robertson family acquired their home by accessing a local home ownership assistance
program designed to help first-time homebuyers falling within certain income
parameters. Furthermore, despite the similar average ages between the upper-middle
class and working class respondents (see Tables 2.1 and 2.2) there is a wide disparity
in their equity accumulations. All upper-middle class families are paying off (or have
fully paid off) mortgages and have been doing so for some time. However, some
54
working class respondents are not building up any real property equity due to their
renting status while others are only just beginning to do so. Indeed, two of the working
class “homeowner" families have purchased their first homes within the past year.
Finally, none of the working class poor households own their homes. While
renting one’s residence comes with certain advantages in terms of flexibility (i.e., real
property is a relatively non-liquid asset), it prohibits such individuals from taking
advantage of the financial benefits that the American tax system confers upon home
ownership and from accessing this potentially lucrative vehicle for wealth
accumulation.
Durable Goods
Regarding durable goods, with few exceptions, respondents who own their
homes own a washing machine, a dryer, and a dishwasher. Each upper-middle class
household owns these goods as do most working class households (see Tables 2.19,
2.20). Respondents who rent generally do not own these goods. This includes all
working class poor respondents and some working class respondents. Because I did
not attempt to directly assess these goods, it is not possible to provide further details
on their condition, quality, or value.
I also provide in Tables 2.19, 2.20, and 2.21 information regarding automobile
ownership. As noted in the tables, each household in the study owns at least one
vehicle. In some upper-middle class families, respondents do not own but lease one
(or, in one household, two) of their cars.20 Each upper-middle class household has a
20 I elected to include information on leased vehicles as well as those for which there is a lien.
While a vehicle not fully owned by (or leased by) the respondent cannot be considered an
owned asset, there are presumably advantages associated with driving a newer automobile than
55
Table 2.19 Durable Goods Owned, Upper-Middle Class Households
Household Automobile Own or Washing Dryer Dish

Other?* Machine washer
Dexter (2) ‘93 Dodge Caravan lease yes yes yes

‘86 Honda Accord own
Hopewell (2) '90 Crown Victoria own yes yes yes

‘89 Chevrolet Wagon own
Lawton (3) ‘94 Chevrolet Conversion Van lease yes yes yes
‘95 Ford Explorer own
‘95 Jaguar XJ6 lease
Mandel (2) ‘94 Volvo Wagon lien yes yes yes

‘85 Honda Accord own
Parkin (1) '92 Honda Civic Wagon own yes yes yes
Tallinger(2) ‘92 Ford Explorer lease yes yes yes

‘88 Oldsmobile Wagon own
Note: Data collected in 1995
'This column refers to the “automobile" column.
ratio of 1:1 with regards to the number of cars owned (or leased) and the number of
drivers in the household. The average age of vehicles in upper-middle class
households is less than four years old.21 Most but not all working class families also
maintain a ratio of 1:1 with regards to the number of cars owned and the number of
drivers in the household. Two of the exceptions regard older children who are of
driving age but do not own a vehicle. In addition, the Robertson family relies on only
one that is several years old in terms of the incidence of breakdown and the need for repairs.
Use of a reliable vehicle can be an important asset during a period of financial setback.
21 The average year of production for vehicles in this group is 91.3. In calculating this figure I
eliminated the vehicles with the highest (i.e., 95) and lowest (i.e., 85) value.
56
Table 2.20 Durable Goods Owned, Working Class Households

(# drivers in Other?* Machine washer
household)
Caldwell (2)** ‘86 Chrysler New Yorker own no data no data no data
Estobar (1) ‘86 Isuzu Trooper own yes yes yes
Fallon O r * ‘83 Buick Regal own yes yes no
Gaskel (2) ‘94 Dodge Shadow lien yes yes yes

‘86 Dodge Van own
Robertson (2) ‘93 Ford Aerostar lien yes yes yes
Stevens (1) ‘85 Toyota Camry own no no no
Yanelli (3)**** ‘82 Chevrolet Malibu Wagon own yes yes yes
‘86 Buick Skylark
own
This column refers to the “automobile" column.
** The second driver in the Caldwell household is Eileen’s seventeen year-old daughter who
does not own her own car but frequently borrows Eileen’s to drive to work.
***Debbie Fallon (the wife/mother in this family) has never learned to drive.
**** The third driver in the Yanelli household is a 22 year-old son who does not own his own car.
57
Table 2.21 Durable Goods Owned, Working Class Poor Households

(# drivers in Other?* Machine washer
household)
Conti (2)** ‘83 Subaru Station Wagon own no no no
DeStefano (1) '87 Oldsmobile Firenza own no no no
Greeley (2) '93 Dodge Caravan lien no no no

‘78 Buick Century own
Naughton (2) '87 Oldsmobile Cutlas Sierra own no no no
Warner (1) ‘86 Chevrolet Caprice own no no no

* This column refers to the “automobile” column.
** The second driver in the Conti household is Mary’s sixteen year-old daughter.
one car despite being a two-(adult) driver household. In the Fallon family, Debbie, the
wife/mother in the household, has never learned to drive. Vehicles owned by working
class respondents are generally older and of lesser value than those owned by upper-
middle class respondents. The automobiles owned by these respondents are, on
average, almost nine years old.22
Finally as with working class families, working class poor households in the
study generally drive older vehicles. While in one, unusual case, the (Greeley) family
drives a relatively new vehicle, most working class poor respondents rely on cars that
58
are almost ten years old.23 Although three of these households are two-driver
households, only one has two vehicles.
In short, upper-middle class households possess the newest and, relatedly,
most valuable vehicles in the study.
Other Tangible and Intangible Assets
In addition to the major assets discussed above, there are a variety of financial
resources either possessed by or to which respondents have access. For example,
access to loans, cash gifts and in-kind services from family and friends constitute a
significant asset for households throughout the sample. Working class and working
class poor respondents, in particular, often spoke of small loans or cash gifts provided
by friends and relatives as being relied upon during financially lean periods. In some
instances, small loans or gifts were mentioned as being used for purchasing food or
paying monthly bills. At other times it was a child’s activity fee or Christmas presents
that spurred these transactions. One working class poor family, the Naughtons were,
at the time of data collection, relying upon regular loans from the husband’s father to
pay their rent and some household bills.24 In the main, however, working class and
working class poor respondents expressed wariness about borrowing significant sums
(e.g., for a home purchase) from relatives or friends. Even in those cases in which a
friend or relative with significant resources was willing and able to make such loans,
these respondents “knew” that they would have difficulty repaying the lender. Indeed,
24 Although Gerald Naughton’s father provided these monies to his son and his wife as a loan, it
was not entirely clear whether these funds might not ultimately be considered a gift. Gerald was
confident that his father would require payment. Gerald’s wife, Diane, disagreed.
59
none of the working class respondents reported using money from a relative for the
downpayment on a home (see Tables 2.17 and 2.18). Small loans for day-to-day
purchases were more common.
In addition, respondents in these households spoke of in-kind services provided
by family and friends such as babysitting services or help with home repairs. One
working class respondent mentioned the free drinks her sister serves her at the bar
she tends and the discounts her daughter sometimes gets for her at the retail store
where she works. Gifts from grandparents, particularly clothing for children, also
represents an in-kind resource available to some respondents in both the working
class and working class poor groups. The most substantial resource of this type relied
upon by respondents was the free housing provided by relatives during times of need.
Although only one (working class poor) respondent was living with a relative during the
time of data collection, others (both working class and working class poor) had done
so in previous years. In virtually all cases it was following a divorce that (female)
respondents tapped this resource.
Upper-middle class respondents also enjoy a variety of gifts, loans and in-kind
services from friends and relatives. In these households, sizable loans and gifts tended
to be geared toward discrete, irregular purchases, such as downpayment and closing
costs for the purchase of a home. These were provided by members of respondents
extended families. Indeed, as indicated in Table 2.16, virtually all upper-middle class
households used such funds for the purchase of their first home. In the one instance
where no family-related monies were relied upon for this purpose (the Mandel family),
the respondents had borrowed a significant sum from a relative to purchase a retail
business. Indeed, in the upper-middle class households, the cash gifts and loans
60
provided by family members tended to be large amounts (i.e., several thousand
dollars) used for investment purposes, usually, but not always, investments in
residential property.
In-kind services are also available to upper-middle class respondents through
relatives and friends alike. For example, a number of these respondents spoke of
family members and friends with vacation homes (e.g., at the (nearby) oceanfront; in
Aspen; in Vermont; on a lake in Virginia), some of which came equipped with
amenities like a boat and water skiing equipment at which they would themselves take
the family for holiday breaks, either visiting the friend/relative-owner or on their own.
Use of these vacation properties is free to respondents and their families. Some spoke
of (local) friends or relatives with swimming pools which they use with regularity.
Reliance on family and friends for (free) babysitting services appeared to be
less common in upper-middle class households relative to the working class and
working class poor. Indeed, in three of the upper-middle class households (the
Dexters, the Hopewells and the Parkin family), respondents are not native to the
community but have relocated to the area for work. As a result, they have either no
family in the area or, by coincidence, just one relative living nearby.25 Nevertheless,
some families, such as the Tallingers who do have family in the area rely upon
grandparents (or siblings) for occasional babysitting. The Tallingers frequently call
upon Louise Tallingeris mother to stay with their three sons when she and Don have
simultaneous overnight business trips.
25 By contrast, virtually all of the working class and working class poor respondents was raised in
the local area (if not, same community where they presently live) and most have relatives
residing nearby.
61
In addition to these loans, gifts and in-kind services accessed through family
and friends, upper-middle class respondents enjoy a variety of work-related perks that
generally do not exist for working class and working-class poor respondents in the
study. Among the most prominent of these are the travel opportunities afforded by
work. In some cases, opportunities for free travel to specific locations have been taken
advantage of by upper-middle class respondents when business trips have taken them
to desirable locations (e.g., Paris, a Utah ski resort, various Pacific Islands). In other
instances, free travel is accessed through use of frequent flier miles accrued through
travel for business. In the Tallinger household, for example, the entire family (i.e., two
adults and three children) took a trip to Wyoming (where they stayed with a relative)
using frequent flier vouchers.26 Other work-related perks enjoyed by upper-middle
class respondents include meals (e.g., in restaurants when entertaining clients), the
use of a company car, and partial insurance coverage on a vehicle used primarily for
travel to and from work.
Although none of the working class and working class poor respondents
reported sizable “perks” related to their work, one who works in a soup kitchen
(Stephanie Greeley) does receive free meals at her place of work. Another
respondent, Mary Conti, who used to work at a convenience store was able, during the
period of her employment, to maintain a credit account with the store.27 In addition,
Mary received discounted sandwiches and free drinks while on a shift. After leaving
26 As noted above, other upper-middle class respondents accumulated frequent flier miles by
using particular credit cards for purchases.
27 Store credit was not generally offered to customers of this chain convenience store.
62
that job, she remained friendly with her former boss and was able to buy things at the
store “on credit" when need be.
In short, a variety of intangible and, in many ways difficult to quantify resources
are available to and accessed by respondents throughout the study. Much of the data I
collected on the use of such resources was uncovered not through direct queries but in
more roundabout ways during interviews and fieldwork. As a result, it is difficult to
make precise determinations as to which, if any, class group benefits “most" from such
resources. Although the market (or dollar) value of the gifts, loans and services
accessed by the upper-middle class would appear to be significantly greater than that
of the working class and working class poor, it is not evident that the upper-middle
class can be said to benefit more in this regard. As others have shown, particularly
with regards to the poor, shared resources are an essential component of the “survival
strategies” employed by those consumers (Stack 1974; Edit and Lein 1997). Although
the market value of the goods “swapped" or otherwise shared may be small, such
relationships of interdependence can be the difference between “making if and not.
For upper-middle class consumers, it is not “survival” in the same sense that is on the
line, but, what are more easily characterized as investment opportunities and things
related to the maintenance of class position and lifestyle. Nevertheless, the sample of
resources noted here constitute privileges afforded upper-middle class consumers by
virtue of their class position.
In this section I have described a variety of financial resources held by
respondents in the study. As noted above, respondents incomes vary by class with the
upper-middle class receiving the largest household incomes and the working class
poor receiving the smallest In some ways, the fact that class and income covary in the
63
sample makes it difficult to see the effects of class that are independent of income.
Indeed, some might argue that a better strategy would be to locate respondents with
the same incomes but who are in different class positions.
While I agree that such an approach would be fruitful, I believe it also has
significant drawbacks. The relationship between class and income (in the general
populace) has been and continues to be extremely strong. Indeed, this relationship has
become more pronounced in recent years as income disparities between the educated
middle and upper-middle class and the remaining (approximately 75% of the)
population have grown (Mischel, Bernstein and Schmitt 1999; Brown 1994). Although
there is certainly more to class than income, income is an central, defining feature of
class experience and class culture. The fact that, by and large, working class
individuals, for example, generally have modest incomes is an important component of
working class life. To control for income is, in a sense then, to control for class.
Moreover, although income is probably the most important resource available
to consumers (in terms of shaping their opportunities vis a vis commodity markets) as I
have suggested here, income is but one aspect of consumers’ financial profiles. It is
not only income that covaries with class, but to a great extent, a variety of other
financial resources (e.g., credit access, home equity, etc.). This is true both in the
present sample and in the population more generally.28 As researchers have long
noted, wealth, for example, is even more unequally distributed along class lines than
income (Sherraden 1991). By considering a broader range of financial resources to
28 See Mischel, Bernstein, and Schmitt (1999), particularly on the distribution of pension funds
(pp 143-48) and stock ownership (pp 266-74). See also Brown (1994) and Sherraden (1991) on
the distribution of housing assets. For a discussion of the growing credit card debt among the
poor (and shrinking debt of the upper-middle class) see Bird, Hagstrom and Wild (1999).
64
which consumers have access (including but not limited to income) we can appreciate
the full extent of the effects of class on the financial standing of consumers. In doing
so, it becomes all the more apparent that this collection of resources is class-linked. As
such, the relationship of these resources to class groups is not coincidental and should
not be controlled for.29
Data Collection
The Inten/iews
Each of the twenty-nine respondents was interviewed twice for a total of fifty-
eight interviews in the study. These tape-recorded interviews were an average of
ninety minutes to two hours in length. Almost all of the interviews were conducted in
respondents’ homes, although some took place in a diner and other at the
respondent’s place of work.
In the first interview I posed questions geared toward tapping respondents’
perceptions about their ability to obtain desired goods. Respondents were asked to
discuss such issues as their conception of a “comfortable’’ lifestyle, their feelings about
their current (and past) standard of living, and the things for which they think it is
important to have money. These aspects of life are often taken for granted and thus,
difficult to articulate. With this in mind, I posed “grounded" questions (along with more
abstract ones) as a means of helping respondents express their feelings. For example,
respondents were asked about how they handle requests from their children, what they
would do with an unexpected windfall and, to define ways in which they “splurge.”
29 Again, I do not mean to suggest that controlling for income (or financial resources more
generally) would not be a fruitful avenue for research. Clearly this would be the easiest way to
see the effects of cultural factors not directly linked to (current) financial resources.
65
Respondents who had a difficult time finding their voice when faced with more abstract
questions (e.g., “tell me about what you see as a comfortable standard of living") were
generally able to articulate their ideas in the more grounded context.
In the second interview, respondents were asked to discuss their experiences
in procuring goods (and to a lesser extent, services). Discussion centered around how,
precisely, respondents go about getting the things they need or want, what these
processes entail and what they represent to them. I asked respondents to tell me what
kind of a “shopper” or “getter of things” they are. From there, I encouraged
respondents to tell me in greater detail about a specific type of shopping, depending
upon what they mentioned. If they failed to raise specifics, I asked about the kind of
shopping they enjoyed. Although I was interested in exploring the shopping contexts
that held meaning for them, most respondents spoke at some point about items such
as clothing, food, and home furnishings. I asked everyone about making purchases for
their children. Finally, toward the end of the interview I asked respondents questions
regarding money management and bill paying. These were followed up with a series of
queries aimed at assessing respondents’ financial resources.30
30 in proposing this research, my initial aim was to learn about individuals’ lives both as
consumers and as workers. To that end, I conducted lengthy interviews with the first
respondents I contacted (i.e., four of the Lareau families: the Fallons, the Hopewells, the
Tallingers and the Yanellis) on issues of work, as well as the separate interviews about issues of
consumption. Reflecting upon those “work” interviews, however, I began to reconsider my
approach. The project, as originally designed, seemed both too ambitious and, essentially,
disjointed. At that point, I elected to drastically reduce the amount of interview time I would
spend on issues of work and focus my efforts more pointedly on the issues of consumption and
acquisition. Because the respondents I had interviewed using the original interview guide were
all participants in the fieldwork portion of the study (and were participants in Dr. Lareau’s
research) I was afforded additional opportunities to explore more deeply the consumption/
acquisition issues in future meetings, despite having had less time in the initial interview to
explore those matters.
66
Fieldwork and the “Lareau Families” Data
Five families in the study were selected for observation and additional
(informal) interviews. Like the other households in the study, these participants all have
at least one school-aged child and reside in the target communities. Each parent in
these households was interviewed twice. Unlike the other families, however, these
families had previously participated in a separate ethnographic study about family life.
They were chosen to participate in this phase of the research for this reason. Dr.
Lareau, the principal investigator for that study, agreed to share with me the data from
her research, providing an unusual opportunity to supplement my own specially
focused research with a wealth of rich additional data.
The Lareau Study: The Lareau Study centered on issues of family life and
parents’ management of children’s lives. In that study, observation was conducted in
third grade classrooms in two schools (one in a working class neighborhood located
within the city borders, the other in a nearby middle-class neighborhood). A total of 88
children in these classrooms participated in the study. Either one or both of their
parents were interviewed. From that pool, twelve families (six African-American and six
white families) were selected for intensive field research and multiple interviews.
During 1994-1995 a team of researchers (usually two research assistants in
addition to the principal investigator) visited each of these families about twenty times
over the course of one month. Families were asked to continue their usual routines
and allow researchers to accompany them in their comings and goings. Research
visits were spread out to cover different times of the day and days of the week.
Families were visited under a variety of circumstances including mealtimes, after
school hours, bedtime (including overnight visits), during their morning routines, on
67
shopping trips, visits to the doctor, appointments with school officials and nights at
home in front of the television. Detailed field notes were written on each contact
between members of the research team and family members. In addition to the
fieldwork, multiple interviews were conducted with parents and children.31 Information
on family members’ medical and work histories and some information about finances
and assets was also collected. Families were paid $350 for their participation in the
study.
Fieldwork for the Dissertation: Dr. Lareau made initial contact with the families
by telephone to see if they would be willing to meet with me to discuss their
participation in my research. In my initial meetings with these families I explained that
their participation would require two interviews with each parent followed by three (or
four) “shopping visits” scheduled at their convenience. I told them that I had a quite
flexible schedule and that the visits could take place anytime within about a six month
period. I made it clear that they were being asked to allow me to join them on shopping
trips and that they should not alter the timing or character of these trips on my account.
Because shopping trips are generally planned in only a loose sense (e.g., going
grocery shopping “at some point” during a weekend) and often take place on the spur
of the moment, I contacted the respondents from time to time to inquire about
upcoming trips. In addition, I gave each family my home telephone number so that
they could contact me if they were going to do some shopping.
31 Because this study centered around the fourth grade child in the family, the study also
includes interviews with teachers, social service agents, activity leaders (e.g., coaches) and
others with a high degree of involvement in the child’s life. I reviewed these data, but did not
include them in systematic coding (see below).
68
Though these calls were ostensibly about logistics, I often had extended
conversations with respondents about the issues we had discussed in the interviews or
simply what was going on in their lives more generally (often the same thing). I also
got to leam about their family routines and how shopping fits in. For example, in one
family, the Tallingers, it was quite difficult to arrange observations. They were not a
family that shopped for leisure, instead, often picking up needed items while on the go,
in between other activities (e.g., between soccer practice for one of their sons and a
child’s birthday party). This made scheduling fieldwork somewhat difficult but it was
also telling in terms of their relationship to consumption. I wrote fieldnotes on most of
these “scheduling" conversations with respondents. In this way, the ongoing contact I
had with families in attempting to arrange fieldwork itself produced “data."
I informed the families that on our trips we could shop for anything they chose
but that in order to see different contexts I did not want more than one of the trips to be
to the supermarket. In addition, though both partners did not need to be on each trip,
each had to be present for at least one. While I did not require it, children were present
for most of these observations. For the observations, I met the families at their home
and then accompanied them in their car to and from the store(s). These trips lasted
between one and six hours. On one occasion I went out with the husband in the
morning, had lunch with the family, and then joined the wife on an unscheduled trip to
a department store that afternoon. With another family, I sometimes stopped by the
house in person to see about upcoming trips and say hello. On one of these occasions
I was present for a in-home consultation from an insurance agent. Thus, the exact
number of “shopping trips” is not easily calculated. Nevertheless, I conducted no less
69
than three trips with each of these families. Data collection for the dissertation took
place between June and December 1995.
Data Analysis
Each interview was transcribed, most by not all, by myself. Though tedious,
transcription offers an invaluable opportunity to revisit the interview and reflect on
particular aspects of the respondent’s account. While transcribing, I often jotted down
notes of what appeared to be particularly telling passages.
After transcribing the interviews I coded the interviews and fieldnotes. I began
to develop a coding scheme by reading and “pre-coding" a small number of interviews
and keeping a list of prospective code terms. The scheme I ultimately used included a
wide array of objective/practical (e.g., “food shopping,” “method of payment"),
subjective (e.g., “guilt,” “likes about shopping," “worry") and theoretical (e.g., “cultural
capital") codes. Using these codes, I began to focus the analysis on particular themes
(e.g., time orientation; clarity of perspective) that were woven through the data, across
code categories. As suggested by Miles and Huberman (1984) data matrices were
helpful in gaining perspective both on the data I had and on that which I did not.
Reflections on the Methodological Approach
The issues explored in this dissertation relate to the ways individuals both
perceive and experience their lives as consumers. With the major questions of the
study centered on the character and meaning of individuals’ experiences, a flexible
research methodology such as one employing open-ended interviews and participant
observation was called for. The exploratory nature of the research questions required
70
a methodology that insured that respondents had the freedom to discuss, in their own
words, that which matters to them.
By allowing respondents to speak for themselves, this methodology allows for a
more nuanced analysis than would have been possible under other approaches. As
others have shown (DeVault 1991), the difficulty respondents sometimes have in
articulating their feelings are clues to be listened to rather than problems to be
avoided. Particularly when studying “taken for granted," “everyday life" issues, it is
important to ask the same questions in a number of ways, allowing respondents to talk
about that which makes sense and has meaning for them. The open-ended questions
used in the research were designed with this in mind.
An important component of the research design is its coupling of in-depth
interviews with participant observation. Fieldwork enabled me to develop a deeper
sense of precisely what people do as they go about obtaining (and failing to obtain)
market goods. Particularly when studying processes of everyday-life activity,
observation allows the researcher to consider things that respondents might not think
to discuss in interviews. For example, none of my respondents discussed whether they
make eye contact in their dealings with store personnel, the manner in which they
handle merchandise they consider, or the expressions on their faces when the bill
comes to more than expected. Observation, provides access to what are often the
invisible pieces of everyday life.
In addition, observation allows the researcher to further consider issues that
were raised in the interviews. During our visit to the supermarket, for example, Peggy
Hopewell elaborated on her coupon-using strategies, telling me how she would use
them for certain staple items but not bother for most things. Bill Yanelli’s actions during
71
our trip to Hechinger’s (a home improvement store) allowed me to see that not only
does he compartmentalize his money mentally (his emphasis in the interview on how
he sets aside money to “take care o f particular bills) but also physically (when he
separates the money in his wallet as targeted for different purposes). In sum, my
fieldwork allowed me to examine first-hand the physical activities of acquisition and to
further probe issues raised in the interviews.
Inclusion of data from the Lareau Study provided a unique opportunity to blend
my own specially focused research with a rich, broad-based data set collected with the
same respondents. Due to the intensity of fieldwork in the Lareau Study (with about
four visits per week in each family), the data include fieldnotes on informal family
“discussions” (often not more than a few words) on a far-reaching range of topics.
Though not aimed specifically at uncovering issues related to consumption, the data
set includes detailed information about how families shop, pay bills, and talk about
(and teach their children about) money. Spending a great deal of time with the families
in their “natural state,” the researchers were able to document descriptions of life’s
informal moments in which these issues arise. For example, fieldnotes from the project
note the intensity of the Yanellis’ ritual Friday night bill paying sessions. While
interviews allowed me to probe respondents feelings on particular issues, this intensive
fieldwork (coupled with my own) provided a rare glimpse at the position of these issues
in everyday life.
Taken together, these strategies produced a particularly rich data set that
provides detailed accounts of what these consumers think, feel and do when acting
under that guise. Some would argue that information obtained through interviews (in
particular) should only be considered as representing the “story" or presentation of self
72
(Goffman 1959) and one’s experiences as selectively recounted and described by the
respondent. In other worlds, that we cannot, through interviews learn about the
objective reality of people’s lives (i.e., what they actually think, feel and do). What we
learn is how it is that people present themselves and their experiences to others (in
this case to a researcher in an interview format). It is their “story" about, in this case,
being a consumer that we leam about, not the reality (see also Glaser and Strauss
1967).
While sympathetic to such interpretations of interview data, I would argue that
researchers unnecessarily limit the usefulness of their data when the fail to move
beyond the “stories” approach. Indeed, such a perspective can be unduly paralyzing.
Although one can never fully escape the problems associated with identifying an
“objective reality," I would suggest that some methods of data collection are better
suited to moving beyond “people’s stories” than others. For example, as noted above,
including both in-depth interviews and a series of observations, allows the researcher
opportunities to probe respondents on a number of occasions in various contexts on
the same or similar issues. In addition, I would suggest that certain interview strategies
are particularly helpful in this regard. Asking respondents about specific details of what
it is they do (Smith 1986; DeVault 1991) encourages the respondent to present a clear
and, I would argue, more accurate account than would likely otherwise be provided.
In the present research, I told respondents that I was interested in learning
about “the steps" involved in obtaining goods. Thus, for example, when a respondent
mentioned that she clips coupons, I asked where she gets them from (e.g., sale
papers delivered to the house, newspapers, etc.), when she does the clipping (e.g.,
Sunday evenings), and where she sits while doing it (e.g. ,at the kitchen table, while
73
watching television, nowhere in particular). In doing so, I would argue, I am able to
move beyond a perhaps glossy presentation of one’s self as a coupon clipper to
something more concrete.
Another strategy that helps one tap “the reality" is to subtly validate the
(potential) experiences of respondents when posing interview questions. For example,
on the understanding that clipping coupons could easily be interpreted as the virtuous
or at least “smart shopper” thing to do as a consumer, to admit to not doing so may
make one feel bad about their habits and, perhaps, to portray them otherwise. In such
instances (as identified by myself as the researcher) I would ask, for example, “What
about coupon clipping? Is that something you do?' (emphasis added). By posing the
question in this manner I validate the “No, I don’t bother with that" response by
implying that there is more than one way to approach the coupon clipping issue. Again,
this strategy, I would argue helps bring the responses elicited closer to “reality” than
might otherwise be the case. And by combining such interviews with field observation
(and further probing), this is all the more possible.
Thus, while I would acknowledge that interview data comes with a host of
subjective drawbacks that can never be completely avoided, I would argue that it is
possible to leam about what people do, think, and feel through this methodology.
Throughout the dissertation, in my presentation of the data and in my analysis of it,
therefore, I treat respondents’ experiences as real. Hence, when Terri Stevens
(working class, mother of three) told me that “just the other day” she was thinking
about her son’s upcoming birthday (and the gifts and party it would entail) I report her
as having thought about the party and not simply that this is what she told me.
74
It should also be noted that in analyzing and presenting these data, I consider
certain issues of frequency as relevant, despite the qualitative nature of my
methodology. Qualitative researchers oftentimes shy away from frequency-related
findings in recognition of the limits of research based on small, unrepresentative
samples, such as my own. Again, while I would agree with the basic tenets of this
position, I would suggest that researchers can go too far in their efforts to disregard
frequency patterns in their data.
In my estimation, the pervasity of experience, particularly as identified among
one group of respondents (e.g., working class) and not others (e.g., the poor, the
upper-middle class) says something about class cultures and experience and should
not be ignored. The fact that something comes up over and over again in interviews
with working class respondents and rarely is raised with the upper-middle class, for
example, is meaningful. While it is not a strict numbers game (“six working class
people said X; only one upper-middle class person did") there are issues of overall
tone and common experience among individuals in similar, in this instance, class
positions that speak to the existence of class cultures and, as such, reflect the
meaning of class position and experience. To be sure, individuals may indeed have
exceptional experiences and these can be quite profound, precisely because they are
contradictory to their own usual experience as well as that of those in their family and
community. Nevertheless, I would suggest that the dominance of experience (both
within individual cases and among categories of respondents) that comes from its
recurrence and pervasity —what Lillian Rubin calls “the sweep of life" (1976:31)— is
highly relevant to our attempts to understand class. Indeed, it is this “day-in-day-
75
outness" which renders experience part of the habitus, as described by Bourdieu
(1984,1977).
76
CHAPTER 3
THE MEANING OF SCARCITY:

ACQUISITION PRACTICES AND CONSUMERS OF THE WORKING CLASSES
Introduction
In the last chapter I showed how the financial resources on which consumers
rely to procure market goods vary by class. For working class and, to a greater extent,
working class poor respondents, modest (and, at times, inconsistent) incomes
combined with lack of access to credit, high debt, small or non-existent savings and
investment, and few reliable sources for significant cash assistance means that these
consumers face retail markets with scarce resources. This scarcity is integral to
working class and working class poor life.
In this chapter, I show how these resources shape the relationships between
these consumers and commodity markets. My findings suggest that the working class
poor have a paradoxical relationship to these markets. On the one hand, these
individuals generally avoid encounters with retail stores (i.e., they are non-consumers).
With such restrictive budgets, working class poor consumers tend to opt out of market
relations, limiting shopping to basic necessities. However, when they do engage these
markets, their experiences are characterized by high degrees of attention to small
details (i.e., they are hyper-consumers).
By contrast, working class consumers —who tend to enjoy greater degrees of
freedom with respect to financial resources— are generally able to engage commodity
markets in a more regular and leisurely fashion. Still, a variety of influences create
situations such that their experiences are in many ways not unlike those of the working
77
class poor. For consumers in each group, calculated thinking, anxiety, and often worry
over access to goods is the norm.
The Experience of Poverty: Consumers of the Working Class Poor
When I met Janet DeStefano there were a number of changes taking place in
her life. A widowed mother of six, Janet was beginning work toward her General
Equivalency Diploma and starting a new job as a food service worker. Though she had
sporadically done some house cleaning, waitressing, and babysitting “on the side," at
forty-one, Janet had been relying on some form of public assistance for most of her
adult life. When her (common law) husband, Bart, died almost two years ago he was
bringing home about $400 a week, working “off-the-books" at a motorcycle repair
shop. In retrospect, Janet feels uncertain about whether or not they “really needed"
welfare while Bart was alive; she has no doubt, however, about her needs now.
Janet’s two eldest daughters (from a previous marriage), Karen, twenty-four,
and Cathy, twenty-two, no longer live at home. Her son Lennie, eighteen, was staying
with her when I interviewed Janet, but in recent months has been living with her
brother in a rural area, about three and a half hours away. After Lennie spent seven
months in a rehabilitation center for drug and alcohol abuse, Janet thought he needed
to be out of the city and “away from the peer pressure” if he was going to “make
something of his life" as she wants him to. By the time of our second interview,
however, Lennie had expressed interest in moving back home and it looked as if he
would. Her other son, fourteen year-old Gregory, is currently “in placement" at a state
institution for youth. According to Janet, Gregory “went haywire” after his father’s
death, smoking pot, stealing cars, and getting into trouble with the police. Janet could
not sleep at night, wondering where he was and what he was doing. Earlier this year,
78
after his involvement in a high-speed police chase, Janet “turned him in" to the police.
“I had to turn him in. [It was the] hardest thing I ever had to do, but he was only
fourteen years old...God forbid something happened, it would have been my fault
cause I didn’t stop it...I still ache on account of that."
Janet’s children are not alone in their troubles with drugs and alcohol. Janet is
herself a recovering alcoholic and drug abuser. She and Bart shared their addictions,
drinking vodka with beer chasers and taking pills. Bart’s death was attributed to
cirrhosis of the liver. But Janet has been sober for several months now and is trying to
take hold of her life “one step at a time.” Her two other children, Katie, sixteen and
Linda, twelve, still live with her. The DeStefanos reside with Janet’s mother-in-law in
the three-bedroom house “Grandma" owns on Juniper Lane, a pleasant, tree-lined
street in what has become a desirable section of Sylvan Hill. Janet and Bart had
bought a home of their own in another part of town about fourteen years ago, but the
bank “took it off’ them after only three years as a result of too many missed payments.
When forced out of that house, Bart’s mother let them move into the Juniper Lane
house and she moved in with her sister. When Bart fell ill, however, Grandma,
concerned about issues of possession and the ownership of her property, moved back
in, leaving Janet to sleep on the living room couch.
Today, Janet gets by on about $800 a month from Supplemental Security
Insurance (SSI) plus food stamps. She does not pay her mother-in-law rent but she
pays the household gas, electric, telephone and cable television bills. They keep their
food bills separate and only share meals on occasion. Janet’s case worker recently
told her that as a result of a miscalculation in her monthly expenses, her food stamps
were subject to immediate reduction from $359 to $153 per month. This will leave her
79
with about $950 a month, including the stamps. Other income is limited at this point as
Janet eases into her new (“on the books") part-time job, attends GED classes, and
works on her sobriety through Alcoholics Anonymous.
With such limited funds, most of Janet’s money goes to cover what she termed
“basic things." When I asked her to tell me about the role of money in her life, she
spoke without hesitation:
Survival. I need it to live. I mean, I just want money for the basic
things right now. I have the money for, well, with this Social Security
check that I get I can pay my bills. I want to be able to get my own
place. I want to be out of here. I just want it for rent, the bills,
clothes. My clothes I get are from my girls. You know, the things
they don’t want, I wear them. Luckily, I can fit into them [laughtei].
But, urn, I don’t know. I’d like to be able to get nice things for my
house and stuff like that. I want to have car insurance. I had it but
when my husband died I had to drop it. It’s really scary. I don’t like
driving around without it, but I have to, you know. And urn, I want to
pay life insurance, cause since my husband died, I know I don’t
want my kids to have that burden when I die. The basic things, you
know? No biggie. To be able to get them Christmas presents and
throw my twelve-year old a birthday party.
The nature of Janet’s situation became further evident as she explained what happens
on the third day of each month when her government check arrives:
I get my check and then I go to the bank. And uh, I usually, I have
to cash them up there and put some money in the bank, but what I
usually do is I take some of it out right there and then, because by
that time I’m out of food, you know? So I have to go right to the
supermarket. I go to the supermarket and the next day I usually pay
my bills. Because money has to be in the account for twenty-four
hours before you can pull any more of it out.
I: And how much is it?
80
Eight hundred dollars. But I don’t never deposit eight hundred

dollars.1 I take like two hundred of that and then deposit the rest.
Then I go to the food store and usually, I have a car, if something
happens to my car and either this gas station over here or a
mechanic that I know around the comer here does my work and
when I get my check I pay him.
Car maintenance on her 1987 Ford is a fairly regular expense for Janet who pays part
of those bills “almost every month.” Local mechanics trust her and allow her to pay
them a little at a time. In the month prior to our interview, she used $50 from an
overnight babysitting job to chip away at a $150 tune-up bill, but still owed $100:
Now with this check coming up at the beginning of this month, I

have to give [the mechanic] a hundred dollars. Then I go and pay
my bills.
I: Those come in and you pay them right, the next day? [repeating
what she had said earlier]
[Nodding] I pay them all at the beginning of the month. I just get
them all, they’re not due until like the middle of the month or the end
of the month but I pay them all right away. This way I know they’re
taken care of. Then, like, [last month, my youngest daughter], Linda
needed a coat so I had to do that. Uh, gas for my car, oil for my car.
Uh, taxables like cat food or laundry soap or vacuum cleaner bags,
little stuff that people don’t think about that costs money, you know.
I: You can’t get with the [food] stamps.
Yeah. And urn, this month I have, Linda needs glasses. I’ve got to
go out and get her a pair of glasses.
Summing up her routine, Janet made it clear that just a few days into the month her
funds are all but depleted:
Well, by the time that’s all over with I only have like a hundred
dollars left in it. So what I do is I use that for cigarettes and gas
1 Here and throughout the dissertation, I have left unchanged grammatical errors, the use of
slang, or other non-standard language uses.
81
and oil in my car like for the month or if, you know, like Linda
needs like personal stuff, you know, then I’ll go and get that. It
doesn’t last. It doesn’t last me. Two weeks out of the month I’m
broke...That’s why I had to get that job.
“The Basic Things:” The Working Class Poor as Non-Consumers and Hyper-
Consumers
Food, a coat, housing, utility services, eye glasses, a child’s birthday party;
most of the items that Janet purchases —or would like to purchase— could scarcely
be seen as luxuries, or even discretionary goods. Instead, Janet’s encounters with
commodity markets center on the satisfaction of basic needs.2 Indeed, after
purchasing food, paying monthly bills, and keeping her car running, Janet is basically
out of money. As analysis in Chapter Two revealed, the financial resources available to
working class poor consumers are quite limited; nationally, over half (56.2 percent) of
poor families’ incomes go to food and housing costs alone (Brown 1994:367). Janet is
2 There can be little question that the term “basic needs” is an infinitely contestable one. While
the human body does have certain requirements for food, water, and shelter, what is considered
a “need” (or “basic need”) without question varies across time and culture as well as from one
individual to another (for discussions see Doyal and Gough 1991; Preteceille and Terrail 1985).
For example, at a most basic level, what is considered an “adequate" residential plumbing
system among poor residents of a developing country would likely differ from the expectations
held by most poor people living in the United States. Satisfaction with one’s standard of living
has been shown to be linked to local conditions and expectations rather than objective
measures of acceptable or desirable standards (Easterlin 1995,1973; Oropesa 1995). Similarly,
although in-house toilet facilities may be considered “basic” in American homes today, such
facilities would have been considered a luxury for most in the previous century and unheard of
prior to that (for more general historical discussions of American standards of living see Larkin
1988; Smith 1990; Blumin 1989). In short, standards of living and definitions of needs (basic or
otherwise) are socially, culturally, historically, as well as, individually constructed.
My use of the terms “basic needs” or “basic things” therefore, should be understood as
linked to the context in which my respondents live. More specifically, the term regards those
items which respondents themselves viewed as constituting “the basics." Indeed, working class
poor respondents repeatedly used this term in describing either those things they wished to
obtain or which they regularly purchase. Although no two respondents provided identical
answers, when asked to specify their use of the term, virtually all spoke of shelter (e.g., “a roof
over my head"), nourishment (e.g., “food for myself and my family”) and clothing. At times,
respondents seemed to recognize the influence of socio-cultural factors on both the categories
of goods mentioned as well as their precise character. For example, one included “clothes that
aren't too outdated" as part of “the basics.”
82
somewhat unique in that she has a store charge card for a low-priced women’s
clothing chain. In addition, she has developed a trusting relationship with mechanics
who allow her to pay for repair bills on an installment basis. Other than this, however,
Janet is generally restricted to purchases for which she has cash on hand. Since she is
“broke two weeks out of the month," Janet spends half of the year with virtually no
access to retail goods or services.
As with other working-class-poor consumers, Janet’s encounters with
commodity markets are centered around trips to the supermarket, the biggest of which
occurs on the day her monthly check arrives. Food shopping forms the core of
acquisition activity in virtually all households in this group. It is the only type of
acquisition in which these consumers participate with any degree of regularity. During
my interviews with Janet, this was made apparent by the limited number of recent,
non-food shopping experiences on which she could rely to address interview
questions. For example, she responded to my queries about returning or exchanging
merchandise by referring to the experiences of her twenty-four year old daughter who
“has them problems all the time.” In her own case, Janet indicated that the question
was moot:
I don’t really [pause] I don’t really buy that much, you know, to take
it back. You can’t take back food and that’s basically all I buy.
Similarly, when I asked about purchasing home furnishings and electrical appliances,
she told me about the washer and dryer she had bought twenty-three years ago with
her husband but that,
All the stuff is [my mother-in-law’s]. Well, I’ve had my toaster for
years. Urn, all the rest of the stuff is hers. I haven’t bought anything.
83
Thus, while her feelings about goods’ acquisition were intense, Janet’s actual
encounters with the market were infrequent.
Janet gave no indication that she was disinterested in shopping or obtaining
retail goods. Indeed, as the earlier description of the things she would like to purchase
shows, there are a large number of items on Janet’s current “wish list.” Nor should
Janet’s lack of recent experience in retail stores be taken to mean that she lacks a
general proclivity for shopping. When her husband was alive she enjoyed the
infrequent shopping trips on which she and Bart went. Moreover, today, despite the
fact that there is little that she can afford to buy, Janet accompanies her self-supported
seventeen year-old daughter on occasional shopping trips so that they can “spend time
together."3
Nevertheless, she and other working class poor consumers infrequently enter
the shops whose merchandise is beyond their reach. The idea of browsing through
items they cannot afford is viewed with a mixture of frustration and resignation. These
consumers are rarely (if ever) part of the weekend crowds of casual, leisure shoppers
found at the local malls. Janet explained it this way:
I don’t really like to go shoppin’ unless I have money in my pocket

because, you know, I’ll want somethin’. And if I don’t have any
money then I feel bad. It’s like a complete waste of time to go
shoppin’ with no money, you know, so I just don’t go.
3 Katie, who is a high school senior, works part-time as a waitress. She pays for all of her
clothes and toiletries, as well as virtually all school-related fees and expenses (e.g., the prom,
senior outings, college applications), and recreational pursuits. Such self-reliance was common
among teens in working class and working class poor households in the study.
84
Another working class poor respondent, Mary Conti {part-time mini-bus driver and
divorced mother of three) told me that she sometimes will go to Woolworth’s at
Founder’s Way or Knightsbridge Mall, but that casual shopping is not something in
which she generally engages:
Woolworth’s, maybe...but I can’t afford, like, the Limited. I can’t

afford Express. I mean, even if it’s on sale, I can’t afford it, so I don’t
bother.
Later in our interview, Mary spoke dejectedly about how she avoids even looking at
items beyond her reach:
I don’t even try to go to browse.
I: Why not?
Because if I see something that I want, then I can’t get it.
I: What’s that like for you?
It’s not bad [shrug]. I mean, I’m used to it. [It was like that] even
when I was married, so... [voice trails off]
Like Janet, Mary spoke of enjoying shopping. As she put it “I think everybody likes
doing that." Nevertheless, she is accustomed to keeping her distance from the halls of
retail. In perhaps a more subtle manner, comments made by one working class poor
consumer suggested that a more complex relationship may be at play. For Gerald
Naugton (unemployed semi-skilled laborer, remarried, father of two) it was not simply
an issue of futility, but a more fundamental issue of belonging. Gerald understood that
being a consumer means having the financial resources necessary to participate
I feel like, if I can’t just go in the store.Jf I got to go in the store and
I got to add up all ‘Well, how much is two of those and...?’ then I
85
ain’t got the money to be in here. I got no business being there.

That to me is like, [shaking his head] I don’t belong in there.
Gerald’s words reveal a sense of alienation as part of his absence from the shops.
Indeed, notions of freedom and choice are widely understood to be hallmarks of the
arena of consumption (for reviews see Slater 1997:36-39; Gabriel and Lang 1995: 27-
46). In contrast to the world of work, where routinely individuals must adhere to
external dictates (e.g., from one’s employer) the realm of consumption is touted as one
in which individuals are free to act and do as they choose. That the working class poor
are highly constrained by the limitations of their financial situation means that they
participate in consumer culture (as purchasers of goods) under highly restrictive
circumstances. As this reality is anathema to what consumption is about, the working
class poor can come to feel as if they are impostors of sorts, pretending to be
consumers when in fact, they are not. As Gerald implies “rear consumers do not have
to be so guarded.
These experiences —or lack of experiences— suggest that poor consumers
are, in a sense, non-consumers. For these respondents, shopping is generally an
instrumental activity with a clear purpose. It is inhibited, above all else, by their inability
to purchase much beyond “the basics." As a result of their precarious financial
situation, these individuals spend little time in direct encounter with commodity
markets, generally shunning the shops whose wares they cannot afford. In this way,
working class poor consumers remove themselves —at least partly— from commodity
market relations.
It is in some ways paradoxical, therefore, that these same consumers who
might in one sense be called “non-consumers” were also among the most attentive
86
and aware of all consumers in the study. The fact that they approach retail markets
with such meager financial resources means that even the smallest of purchases
come to be thought about and considered in pointed fashion. These consumers pay
close attention to small details of which other shoppers rarely take note.
For example, as Janet’s account indicates, simply by using food stamps to pay
for groceries —as four out of the five families in this category do— spurs shoppers to
mentally and physically separate their purchases into food items which can be
purchased with the stamps and taxable goods which cannot (as Janet put it, “little stuff
that people don’t think about”). This is more of an effort than it might seem. Certain
apparently “food" items are not allowed (e.g., hot prepared foods such as pizzas, fried
chicken, or “side dishes”). Other items frequently purchased at grocery stores but not
covered by Food Stamp Benefits include laundry detergent and other cleaners,
feminine sanitary supplies, deodorant, petfood, and paper products (USDA 1997).4
Additionally, the fact that these consumers are basically limited to the relatively
small amount of cash (or food stamps) they have on hand at a given time means that
they tend to be keenly aware of the exact prices of the goods they purchase (see
DeVault 1991 for similar findings). Thus, for example, when Janet’s fourteen year-old
son wrote to her from the state facility asking for money to buy sneakers, Janet could
not simply write a check and be done with the issue. She had to write back to Gregory
to find out exactly how much he needed (“you know, cause I have to know”) after
4 A series of changes to Food Stamp guidelines have been implemented over the past twenty
years. The list of ineligible food items has shrunk dramatically during that time, making the
program of today much more “user friendly" than has historically been the case. For example,
previously, juice beverages had to contain more than 10% juice in order to be purchased with
food stamps. In addition, imported foods were considered ineligible (Hams 1999).
87
which she planned to send the money to him if she could (“if I have it I’ll send it to
him").
In a similar vein, Frank Warner, an unemployed laborer and divorced father of
one, demonstrated the attention he pays to small details through his knowledge of
precise food prices.
I’m very conscientious as far as price. In other words, if I go into the

market and I’m looking at lunch meat... I’m looking [above] the
counter to see what’s on sale. I usually get like turkey, uh, I’ll get
roast beef.
I: How much do you buy?
I'll get a half pound of roast beef, I’ll get a half pound of cheese.
Now, I like Swiss cheese, but the price see, on Swiss cheese
roughly runs $2.39 to $2.49 a half pound. But if I see, uh, like a
week ago they had a pound of American for $1.49. So I’ll buy that.
And then, when I go home, I have like a container that I’ll put my
lunch meat in and I’ll make a sandwich for that day.
Frank purchases only the food he needs for the immediate future. In addition to the
restrictions on his purchasing that result from his limited income, Frank’s living
conditions also influence his practices. The single room he rents upstairs from a West
Richmond bar and grill lacks a kitchen. He relies on a small, “apartmentsize"
refrigerator and a toaster oven to store and prepare his meals. Frank iscarefulto
purchase items small enough to fit into his refrigerator and either be eaten cold or
heated in his toaster oven. As he put it “I’m pretty much like the Poppin’ [Fresh] Dough
Boy. If you can’t heat it, I don’t eat it." He has concluded that the easiest way to cope
with his limited cooking facilities and poverty-level income is to stick with a basic group
of low-cost, easily prepared goods, the prices of which he recites with ease:
88
Like today, I’ll go shopping probably when I leave here. I’ll stop, I’ll
get uh, half a gallon of milk, $1.37. Uh, I’ll get a loaf of bread, $1.29,
uh, unless they have something on sale. I’ll get lunch meat, cheese,
and that’s all I’ll get. I have mayonnaise at home. I’m not big on the
uh, you know, all the garnishes, you know. It’s not like I got have
Grey Pompon [note: says this in a mocking tone] or pickles, lettuce,
tomatoes, things like that.
Frank always knows, to the penny, how much money he has and how much he is
spending. After he purchases his food, most of Frank’s everyday spending money
goes to gasoline for his ‘86 Chevy Caprice and generic brand cigarettes:
If I take a twenty [dollar bill] in the store, whatever I spend in the

store, when I come out, I’ll take that money and put that in the gas
tank. Or if I run to [the convenience store] and get a pack of
cigarettes for $1.71, same thing. When I go to the gas station I’ve
got everything figured out, you know, ‘Okay, I got 41 cents in my
pocket and I got seven, like right there, I got $7.41...’
Through his clear sense of exact prices, the goods he has on hand, and the money in
his pocket, Frank reveals how practices of acquisition are, for him, characterized by
pointed attention to small details. The fact that Frank even thinks to mention the
mayonnaise and other items people habitually use in preparing sandwiches speaks to
the small scale of the items to which Frank’s thoughts as a consumer are devoted.
Such mental calculations are part and parcel to the acts of obtaining goods for working
class poor consumers.
In working class poor households, this attention to small, everyday
expenditures was often a source of worry and friction. When thinking about virtually
every purchase that is made, each encounter with the market —or potential
encounter— brings one’s poverty and its related difficulties to life. And because the
89
level of purchasing at which one is concerned is so small, and thus, involves routinely
purchased, everyday items, the anxiety associated with acquisition is seemingly ever
present. Such constant monitoring and attention takes a toll on one’s mental health
(Goodban 1985; Kessler and Cleary 1980). High levels of anxiety and stress are
common among those with limited education and those living in poverty (Berrick 1995;
Bradbum 1969; Polakow 1993; Warr and Payne 1982). Evidence confirming these
patterns emerged in the present study.
Indeed, as several working class poor respondents made clear, during
particularly lean periods, when one’s resources are virtually depleted, the anxiety over
acquisition can be all-consuming. For example, Frank Warner, the respondent with the
apartment-sized refrigerator, used to experience near-hysteria in thinking about the
things he needed but could not buy. Though, over time, Frank has learned to manage
his fear (Hochschild 1983), he still gets frantic from time to time.
It doesn’t bother me as much as it used to but, I mean, there are

times when I’ve been in an absolute panic. “What am I going to
do?” “Where am I going to get this?" “How am I gonna get this?”
It got to the point, I started giving myself an ulcer.
Frank now tries to take things more in stride. He knows that he is a hard worker and is
doing everything he can to alter his situation. Today, when he is out of cash and in
need of a meal, he tries to do something constructive to earn money for that day, both
taking his mind off his troubles and addressing his immediate needs. He does things
like raking leaves or detailing cars to earn a few dollars and tries not to worry.5
5 Car detailing includes various aspects of cleaning and polishing an automobile, both inside and
out.
90
Others found it more difficult to keep their feelings at bay. In the Naughton
family, Gerald and Diane spoke of the severe tension in their household. The
Naughtons have been struggling to get by ever since Gerald was injured at work six
months ago. Gerald was hurt while working on a construction site and his ability to take
on future work as a semi-skilled laborer is uncertain. His wife Diane’s weekly income of
$225 from her job as a cashier has not been enough to meet household expenses.
Gerald’s father, a retired carpentry worker, has been instrumental in keeping the
Naughtons afloat by loaning them $450 per month to cover their rent. Diane spoke of
the constant worry that plagues her when she or Gerald spend even small sums of
money. She contrasted her present situation to earlier times in her married life when
both she and Gerald were working full-time:
We always had money in our pockets. We always, you know, we

couldn’t go out anytime we wanted to, but we didn’t have to worry
about where our next meal was gonna come from or if we had the
bus fare to get me, like to go somewhere and just, you know, little
stuff like that. It’s all the little intricate details in between that worry
us.
Diane has never had a life of luxury whereby money was of no concern. But the level
of scrutiny she has had to employ when making purchases in recent months goes
beyond that required in previous times. Gerald too spoke of the worry and related
friction that has become commonplace in the Naughton household. He told me that he
and Diane have frequent arguments and that it always seems to come back to money
and things they cannot afford:
People get tired of being hungry, so to speak, and it takes a toll.

Like we sit here sometimes and the dumbest thing.Jike, for
instance, I called her up and I asked her “look, the lady’s cornin’
over [for the interview]. Do me a favor and stop and pick up a bottle
91
of soda” and that’s not something that we can normally keep in the
house...[and that started] a whole thing.Jt’s, like, the pressure
because of us doing without.
Small details, like the money for a bus ride, or the purchase of a bottle of soda
are not likely to give most American consumers pause. Indeed, as I show below, even
working class consumers, who share many of the struggles of the working class poor,
rarely think twice about items at this level of purchasing. Most consumers hop on
buses as a matter of course, more concerned about the traffic and whether one has
the exact change than whether we have enough money to fund the ride. Having a
beverage on hand to offer a house guest is a social norm that most of us do not need
to give thought to before the guest arrives. Some people buy in bulk and keep extra
stocks of soda or juice in the pantry. Others might, in fact, run out of drinks and have
little to offer their guests, but this is likely to be the result of temperament (e.g.,
disorganization, forgetfulness, laziness), a busy schedule, or personal taste (e.g.,
preferring to drink water —generally viewed as an unacceptable offering for guests).
The decision to forego the purchase of a soft drink because it is deemed unaffordable
is an active one, taken in this instance, despite the consumer’s wishes.
These accounts reveal that for poor consumers, seemingly insignificant
purchases can take on great importance. In this way, being a poor consumer means
being a highly attentive consumer, a hyper-consumer. One is not afforded the luxury of
blithely purchasing even the smallest, least expensive goods. Through their practices,
working class poor consumers revisit the issue of budgetary constraints with virtually
every purchase, making consumption issues a interwoven part of everyday life.
Despite the fact that little time is spent in shopping venues, the issues of purchasing
and the associated cash outlays are a constant presence in their everyday lives.
92
Indeed, Diane and Gerald Naughton’s experiences were common among the
working class poor respondents with whom I spoke and shopped. In each and every
family, I heard stories of careful decision-making on things that other consumers would
simply toss in their shopping basket. Things like a tub of ice cream, video rentals, or
super-unleaded gasoline were regarded as rare treats, irregularly purchased and
experienced as special.6 Even when purchases could be made, consumers in this
group told of the careful thinking and, at times, planning that goes into much of what
they buy. The reflections of Graham Morris, another working class poor consumer,
were particularly illuminating in this regard. Graham, a thoughtful man in his early
forties, was, like Gerald Naughton, out of work when I met him due to a serious work-
related injury. Graham compared the calculating he now does when making purchases
to previous times in his life when he was single and worked full-time. Graham enjoys
doing carpentry and other work involved in customizing the interior of his car (e.g.,
constructing special housing for the speakers). As Graham explained, today’s trips to
the hardware store to buy supplies for his projects take on a quite deliberate character.
It’s like, even if it’s a piece of wood, I have to...it’s not like I can say,
‘Well, I’m gonna build this. I’m going to the store and get this.’ It’s
like, I look at how much [money] I got and say, ‘Well, I can get the
wood, but I can't get the nails’...When I go to the store now I
actually look at how many nails come in this box and how many I’m
gonna use for the job and how many nails I’m gonna have left.
Before, it was basically buy the wood, grab a couple boxes of nails
and I’m out of there. Now, I analyze, you know, cause it will be
really messed up if I get to the last part [of my project] and I don’t
have no more nails. You know, I got to wait a whole month.
8 As Miller (1998:40-49) points out, the “treats" shoppers purchase define other items as part of
“the norm."
93
Thus, for these consumers, the practices associated with obtaining goods are
characterized by high degrees of attention to small details including, but not limited to
price. Under such circumstances, acquisition involves making sure that one buys no
more than what is needed for the current project or, as with Frank Warner, will be
eaten within the next few days. These consumers are careful about what they buy,
both down to the penny and, as with Graham Mom's, down to the nail.
A Note on "Blowing I f
It should be noted that the tendency among working class poor consumers to
be deliberate about purchasing market goods was by no means universal. To be sure,
some consumers were “better” at this than others. One working class poor consumer,
Gerald Naughton, was often “irresponsible," as he put it, with money. Gerald made
clear that it was not an uncommon occurrence when he used the money he had
borrowed from his father to treat his (non-custodial) children to lunch at McDonald’s
rather than purchase the part he needed for his car. Indeed, even those who were
more consistently “hyper" in their market encounters (focusing on small details,
particularly those of price) did not always exhibit caution.
But this was not the dominant pattern among these respondents. By and large,
consumption was approached in a thoughtful and deliberate manner by members of
the working class poor. Moreover, because these consumers live so near, as Bourdieu
would have it, to necessity, the ramifications of their actions when they did “blow it”
were both immediate and clear. After Gerald's trip to McDonald’s he had little choice
but to, soon after, focus on the issue of his inoperable car. Indeed, when these
consumers did lower their guard, it was not long before their thoughts were
94
concentrated on repairing the damage. (For further discussion of the clarity and
immediacy of these ramifications, see Chapter Four).
Working Class Consumers
As discussed in Chapter Two, working class and working class poor consumers
in the study share much common ground. Most respondents in each category hold
high school diplomas, although some (particularly in the working class poor) are high
school drop-outs and a few have junior college or trade school training (see Tables 2.5
and 2.6). Those in the workforce are engaged in similar types of jobs under roughly
similar job conditions. In addition, the drop down from the working class to the working
class poor is generally not more than an injury, a divorce, or a layoff away (Bane and
Ellwood 1986). Indeed, as noted in Chapter Two, these consumers may be thought of
as essentially comprising two branches of the same class; all are working class, but
some are currently (or, in some cases, chronically) struggling more than others. In
virtually every case, the household members could, at another point in their lives have
been categorized in the other branch of the working class. Indeed, as previously noted,
the poor consumers in this study would not easily be classified as members of “the
underclass.’’
Nevertheless, working class respondents in the study had incomes and, in
some instances, job benefits and security to which working class poor consumers
aspire. These respondents had annual incomes above $25,000, in some cases,
household incomes of $50,000 per year (see Table 2.8). They were able to support
themselves and their families without the assistance of food stamps, housing
95
subsidies, or cash assistance.7 Many of these respondents had the credit cards that
the working class poor lack (see Table 2.14). Four out of the seven families in this
category were paying off mortgages rather than rent (see Table 2.17).
Below, I describe the relationships between working class consumers and
commodity markets. I ask whether the nature of these relationships differs markedly
from those of the poor, or if similar issues preoccupy these consumers in their day-to-
day lives. As in the previous section, I show how the material resources that these
consumers rely upon shape their experiences in this regard.
Beyond Basic Needs
Artie and Debbie Fallon live on a treeless, crowded block in a residential area
of Lower Richmond. The red-brick two-story house the Fallons rent is flanked on either
side by attached, nearly identical models. Each has a roofed porch buffering the front
door from the sidewalk. The frontage of the property is about fifteen feet. Similar
models stretch the length of the block, forming a seamless row of small houses. Like
some of their neighbors, the Fallons regularly spruce up their porch with holiday
decorations. Halloween brings a scarecrow, jack-o-lantems, pumpkins, fake cobwebs,
Indian com and colorful posters of bats, witches, and goblins. At Christmastime they
“go crazy" with different colored lights, glowing Santas and other decorative
expressions of yuletide cheer.
The Fallons have three children, Bobby, fourteen, and Patty, eleven, both from
Debbie’s previous marriage, and Kelsey, Debbie and Artie’s one and a half year-old
daughter. Both Artie and Debbie work full-time. Debbie is employed as a clerical
7 Some working class families are eligible for medical benefits for their children through a state
program with a relatively high income threshold.
96
worker at a local machine parts factory and Artie holds a union job as part of the
maintenance crew at a hospital. In addition to her full-time job, Debbie does some
seasonal waitress work at a small catering hall earning anywhere from several
hundred to $2000 a year, depending on how busy they are and whether or not they
need her to work. Artie’s schedule at the hospital is varied and he works every other
weekend and some holidays. Artie and Debbie each earn about $20-22,000 a year.
Debbie’s ex-husband (Bobby and Patty’s father) died five years ago. The $595 monthly
check she receives as Survivor’s Benefits for the children is used to pay the family’s
rent. Including these benefits, the Fallons’ current household income is about $50,000
a year.
Neither Debbie nor Artie feel that their ability to obtain consumer goods is
tightly constrained by financial considerations. Indeed, each feels that they are able to
purchase most of the things they need or want. In contrast to the accounts of working
class poor respondents, the Fallons and other working class consumers in the study
are able to engage commodity markets on terms that go beyond the satisfaction of
basic needs. Money spent on food and housing accounts for a smaller proportion of
their income, leaving greater resources available for discretionary purchasing. The
“wiggle room" absent from Janet DeStefano’s relationship to commodity markets was
evident for Debbie and Artie. Indeed, these respondents did not speak of arguments
over a bottle of soda or pointed calculation of the number of nails in a box. Rather,
each expressed satisfaction with their current standard of living and their ability to
exact market goods. Artie put it this way:
I have everything I need. I have a lovely family, I have a roof

over my head right now. That’s all I need...Couldn’t ask for
nothing more.
97
And according to Debbie:
We’re happy. We’ve got everything we want...We don’t go

without, the kids don’t go without, but still the bills get paid.
For Debbie, making sure “the bills” (e.g., rent, utilities, credit card bills) are paid is a top
priority. In her previous marriage, her husband “was no help" when it came to meeting
these expenses. Indeed, he was a drain on the family’s finances, spending money on
cigarettes and drinks at the local bar. For much of their ten-year marriage, Debbie was
the sole earner. Her income was, as she put it simply “not enough to pay the bills and
give him what he needed... The more I worked, the more he drank.” Debbie used to
“panic” upon arriving home after work, never sure if the utilities would still be operable.
Struggling to make ends meet, Debbie began to ignore the bills she could not pay and
before long, the family’s gas and electric services were disconnected. Although
Debbie’s husband managed to get the services reconnected (“illegally”), the
experience still haunts her today. She is fastidious about bill paying:
Now, everything’s different. I worry about the bills first...When

we get behind in the bills, I panic. I [once] lost a bilL.and I drove
myself crazy looking for it.
For the most part, Debbie and Artie are able to keep on top of their bills and can
usually pay them on time or within a few days of their due date (“...It’s just the way the
pay period works...They just get there two days late.”). Artie explained how money for
consumer goods (i.e., “spending money”) consists of “whatever^ left over” after bills
are paid:
98
I know that I get paid every two weeks so I know that I have a
certain amount that I put away for bills. Once that certain amount
gets put away, the rest of the money is ours to spend.
For the Fallons, shopping is a way of life. Rather than feeling —as working
class poor Gerald Naughton did— that they have “no business being there," Artie and
Debbie feel very comfortable browsing through malls and other shopping venues. On
his weekends off, Artie likes to go to the mall “to walk around and relax," shopping,
playing arcade games, and stopping at the Food Court for a bite to eat:
We’ll go out, most of the time it might be for one of the kids or
Debbie wants to get an outfit for work or we’re going somewhere
and she wants to get another outfit, or for the baby or
something. We’ll just go out. There are times we go to the mall,
sometimes we don’t buy anything. I don’t mind. It just gets us
out. I hate, well, I work every other weekend, so the weekend I’m
off, I don’t want to sit home. I want to do something. So she’ll
suggest to go out to the mall and walk around, just to keep busy,
and that’s what we’ll do.
Debbie was less reserved in expressing what she termed her “love" of shopping.8
Anytime, anywhere, for anything, Debbie enjoys her trips to the stores:
I: So would you say you’re a person who likes shopping or

dislikes it or...
I love it! I love it [laughtetj.
I: What do you love about it?
I just like going out and spending [laughter].
8 Campbell (1997) suggests that the strong feminine associations with shopping influence both
men’s feelings about shopping and their expression of them. The tempered tone of Artie’s
comments would seem to be indicative of this. He often qualified (e.g., “I don’t want to sit
home...It just gets us out" “she’ll suggest we go to the mall” [emphasis mine]) or modified (“I
don’t mind”) what appeared to be positive feelings about shopping.
99
I: Are there certain kinds of things that you \\ke...[Debbie

interrupts]
Anything. Clothes, appliances, anything.
While they usually go shopping with some purchase in mind, the Fallons go to malls
for family recreation as well as to purchase goods. Kelsey is almost always with them
on these trips and Patty, the eleven year-old generally comes along, as well, often
bringing a cousin or girlfriend. The Fallons go on some kind of shopping trip virtually
every weekend that Artie is off from work (i.e., half the weekends of the year) and
frequently on weeknights, as well. In contrast to each of the working class poor
families, shopping is an important part of the Fallons’ —and other working class
consumers’— recreational life. It was central, for example, to their evaluation of life in
South Carolina where they spent a week visiting one of Artie’s sisters. During a
weekday morning field observation with the Fallon family, Debbie and Artie told a
researcher from the Lareau project about a trip they had taken there. Their
recollections were centered on shopping, as fieldnotes reveal:
Debbie and Artie started to tell me about their trip to South

Carolina. Debbie started by saying, ‘It’s funny down there. They
have a mall— it’s one level, it’s about the size’ Artie interrupts
‘It’s small.’ Debbie continued, ‘It’s about the size of our Floral
Cliff [an old-style, outdoor stnp mall], and they think that’s a
mall.’ They both looked incredulous and amused by this. Debbie
continued ‘And they don’t have, for supermarkets, they don’t
have Acme.’ Artie said, ‘They have Piggly Wiggly,’ raising his
eyebrows. He continued, ‘They don’t have Kmart, they have
Walmart.’ Debbie said ‘It’s funny.’
A year later, the Fallons again visited Artie’s sister and her family. I spoke to them
shortly after this trip. Once again the local mall was on their minds:
100
Debbie and Artie told me about how they went to a mall near Artie's
sister's house and took his nephew to the arcade. His parents had
never taken him there and Debbie and Artie giggled about
introducing him to this. At different points in the conversation, both
Debbie and Artie said (in similar tones of amazement) They never
took him there.’ ‘He didn’t even know about it.’ Then, Artie with a
laugh: ‘He knows about it now!’
Other working class respondents also reported experiencing shopping as a
regular leisure activity. Like the Fallons, the Gaskel family routinely “hits” the malls to
relax and look at the goods on offer. The entire family —Ray and Mary Ellen and their
three boys, Neil, fourteen, Danny, thirteen, and Michael, ten— is usually together
during these outings. As with the Fallons, it is rare for two weeks to go by without the
Gaskels spending time in one of the area’s malls, generally either Founder’s Way or
Sylvangate. According to Mary Ellen they usually leave the house with something in
mind they are looking for, but that is not always the case:
Sometimes it’s just “out." Just to get free, to get out of the house
and go walking around. It’s something other than sitting in front of
the TV or watching a movie. Uh, yuckie, bad weather, it’s a definite
“out.” The kids can go to the arcade and play games and it’s just a
social out. We stop and get sticky buns and that’s a real treat and
that’s okay...So, a lot of times it’s just a social thing. Founder’s Way
Mall is usually every other Friday night, just out to go out and walk
around.9
Mary Ellen’s husband, Ray, also enjoys shopping. He spent time in malls when he was
younger and feels that his sons can enjoy it too, particularly now that they are reaching
their teen years. He says that he finds it “relaxing."
9 Mary Ellen works the night shift on alternate Fridays.
101
Thus, in contrast to the working class poor, working class consumers generally
felt able to engage commodity markets on a leisurely, recreational basis. Having
greater degrees of freedom in their household budgets meant that they felt
comfortable participating in what media pundits have referred to as the new “great
American pastime:” shopping. Their consumption worlds tended to be less wholly
dominated by restriction and deprivation than was true for the working class poor.
While working class consumers like the Fallons and the Gaskels do not necessarily
purchase much on these trips (“just little things”), their budgets are not so tight as to
preclude spending of any kind. Discretionary, unplanned spending on things like
children’s toys, tee shirts, or small home decorative items were common in my
interviews with working class consumers. Sale items, in particular, were often
mentioned as being within reach.
Other evidence of the less restrictive nature of working class families’ market
relations was provided by the fact that respondents in these houesholds felt that they
could cut back on expenditures if need be. Whereas all of the working class poor
consumers were hard pressed to come up with one thing they could forego, this was
the case for only some of the working class respondents. The Fallons and others felt
that there was at least some spending in their budgets that could be reduced. I asked
Artie what he would do if an unexpected expense came up and he had to cut back:
Well, we wouldn’t go out to dinner as much or go out to fast

foods or something like that.
I: How often do you go out to dinner now?
Well, we went out tonight [and] when we went out last night, we
bought dinner while we were out. Instead of going out and going
102
to the mall and picking up something there to eat, we would eat

here.
Debbie also had no difficulty coming up with belt-tightening possibilities. When I asked
her about places she might cut back, she echoed Artie’s sentiments about the potential
savings of cooking at home, as well as elimination of trips to a nearby chain discount
store:
Going out to the Dollar Store, going out to breakfast, lunch, and
dinner on the weekend, calling out and having stuff delivered—
his mom was too lazy to teach Artie to cook [laughter]. You can
save a lot that way. We have the habit of, Artie’s off every other
weekend, so we go out to breakfast Saturdays and Sundays. It’s
such a treat to us. I mean, it only costs us six or seven dollars
for the two of us to have breakfast, and to me, that’s not a lot. I
give that to the kids for lunch money every week. So, we do that,
and then we come back here, and we order out, or go out for
dinner.
Earlier in the interview, Debbie had mentioned her family’s trips to the chain discount
store (“the Dollar Store”) as something she likes to do but that she did not consider
essential. She calls the things she buys there “nonsense stuff" or “stupid" (e.g., tin foil)
and counts it as the kind of shopping that one could do without. Although Debbie refers
to weekend breakfasts out as “a treat,” these trips are regular events for the Fallons
and not something that is reevaluated each time they go. According to Debbie, the
Fallons order meals such as steak sandwiches or pizzas for the whole family “at least
once a week."
Other working class respondents also pointed to recreational and food-related
items. Linda Yanelli spoke from recent experience when asked about potential areas
for reducing spending:
103
That happened in the winter. I had a lot of unexpected hospital

bills that I paid. And I cut back on, um, ordering out food.
Sometimes we’d order out Chinese [food] on Friday nights, we
cut back on that. Um, just going places, like if we’d just hop up
and go to the movies...We cut back on that, we cut back on
food.
I: When you cut back on food, you...
We just buy what we really need, because I’m the type that buys
everything. So, I just buy what I really need.
Unlike the poor, where foods were essentials, these families had richer food budgets.
Thus, they felt they could be cut. Eileen Caldwell also thought her food budget could
be scaled back. At present, Eileen is able to accommodate her children’s tastes,
buying particular items that they like, even if they are more expensive.
I would probably cut back on food.
I: How so?
Well, because when I buy my food I buy...this one likes that, that
one likes that. They would just have to, I wouldn’t be so special.
I: What kind of things? Does anything in particular come to mind

that you think you'd cut out?
Well, like my daughter, she doesn't drink soda or stuff so I

always buy her Snapple which is seventy-five cents a thing. I
would cut her Snapple out or, just um, well, it isn’t that I buy a lot
of snacks, but I buy snacks and all. Um, I could cut comers.
In short, for working class respondents there was a measure of slack in the system
that was generally absent for the working class poor. The encounters of working class
consumers with retail markets were less narrowly constrained by immediate
imperatives.
104
What these things —recreational shopping, having means of cutting back—
point to is that working class consumers are “in the game." In contrast to the working
class poor who were, in many ways, alienated as consumers (i.e., non-consumers),
working class respondents were regular, active participants in acquisition activity and
consumer culture more generally. The possibilities for consumption were greater for
respondents in this group. While the working class poor struggled to keep a roof over
their heads and put food on the table, being slightly “further from necessity” allowed
working class consumers to engage commodity markets in a more regular and less
restricted fashion. These consumers were able to entertain notions of purchases (both
goods and services) that were quite unthinkable for the poor. This included not only
small, everyday items like pricey soft drinks or trips to the movie theater, but also
larger, more expensive purchases. The Fallon family’s vacations to visit relatives in
South Carolina were precisely the types of trip Gerald Naughton (working class poor)
told me that he “would love” to be able to take with his wife Diane. Gerald daydreams
about packing up the car and driving to Tennessee where be could visit his favorite
aunt and introduce her to Diane. Similarly, some working class families I interviewed
thought they might be able to buy a home computer in the not-too-distant future.
Indeed, after much research and procrastination, the Gaskels purchased a Macintosh
last year. Such a purchase is well beyond the grasp of working class poor consumers
and is not part of their thinking. Thus, unlike working class poor consumers, members
of the working class can and do participate meaningfully in acquisition activity and
consumer culture.
105
So Far and Yet So Near Shared Experiences of Working Class and Working Class
Poor Consumers
In their recent study of single mothers living at or near the poverty line, Edin
and Lein (1997) found that there was often little difference in the material lives of those
women who worked in low-wage jobs and those who received welfare. Like those out
of work and on public assistance, working women with few jobs skills are generally
unable to earn sufficient income to dramatically alter their material life circumstances.
Without the assistance of government programs (or, with little such assistance) these
women and their families were often worse off than their out-of-work counterparts.
While, as noted above, there were indeed important differences in the
relationships between working class and working class poor consumers and
commodity markets in the present study, not everything about these relationships was
wholly distinct and different. Indeed, in certain households (and, in certain ways and at
certain times in all households) the practices of acquisition in which working class
consumers engaged were highly similar to those of the working class poor.
For example, while most working class consumers in the study felt they had
some breathing room, this room was not so spacious. The options suggested by these
respondents as potential areas where spending could be reduced —including pricey
soft drinks and items from the “Dollar Store” —speak to fairly modest levels of
discretionary purchasing. While the fact that these consumers felt that they had (and
apparently did have) some freedom in their budgets represents an important departure
from the experiences of the working class poor, their situation remains one of fairly
narrow constraints.
With limited savings and assets, modest levels of education, uneven job skills,
and generally weak prospects for assistance from kin, none of these consumers are
106
more than a few paychecks away from dropping down into the working class poor.
Even today, with steady incomes on which to rely, some working class respondents
appeared to be as strapped as the poor. In such households, malls and other shopping
venues were routinely avoided in a way similar to the tactics employed by the “non
consumer” poor. Terri Stevens, for example, a waitress and divorced mother of two,
said she makes it a habit to avoid shopping malls:
I: And do you go to malls and places like that sometimes j'ust to

walk around or,
[Interrupts with sharp, terse response] No.
I: Sort of to look or
No. Because it’s too depressing. Because if I can’t buy that’s

torture to me. So like, I only go out when I have something that I
have to get. But just to go out and browse and see what ...nn nn
[sound of disgust]. No, not unless I’m after something.
Terri felt that her tight budget left little room for manoeuvring. When I asked her about
cutting back, she shook her head at the notion:
I don’t see anywhere that I could [cut back]. ‘Cause I don’t really
have anything where I can say “Oh, I have a Harley and maybe
I’d sell it” or, you know “It’s a hobby. Maybe I’d better..." I don’t
have any, like, expensive hobbies that I could live without. My
kids are my hobby.
Terri could not remember the last time she purchased an item of clothing for herself;
the $8 winter coat she had just found at a thrift store was exceptional. By the end of
the pay period, it is not uncommon for Terri to be all but broke. As she explained,
“Sometimes I count pennies.” Indeed, while having enough money for groceries and
107
the rent was not generally an issue, Terri often had little left over after paying for these
essentials:
It’s really usually a very little amount of money that L.after

everything is paid, after I have all the money in the checking and
I can write out all the bills, uh, and by the time the food is bought
and everything it’s like, maybe, like some weeks are better than
others, just like anything, i mean, some weeks I have
nothing...other weeks I’ll have more. Some weeks I have thirty,
some weeks I have fifty, sixty.
Similarly, in the Robertson family, Sandy and Mike spoke of financial struggles and
their effects on acquisition practices in the household. Including overtime, Mike earns
close to $40,000 working at a sewage treatment facility. He makes deliveries and does
maintenance work at the plant. Sandy stays home to care for their four children, the
eldest of whom is eight years old, the youngest almost two. Both Sandy and Mike are
frustrated about their current situation. They feel as if his earnings should be sufficient,
but somehow they are not. As Sandy put it, “He makes enough, but it’s not enough."
After the bills are paid, there is little money left over. Sandy feels guilty if she spends
any of it on herself:
It’s frustrating, very frustrating. ‘Cause I know there’s things that I

need desperately and I know I can’t get them cause I have to take
care of everything else.
I: What kind of things would you like to be able to get for yourself,
things you need or...
Uhhh. New clothes. I have clothes that they’re too big for me and,
[pause] it’s unbelievable. In our house it’s, I can’t get that for me I
have to get this. If I buy something for me I feel guilty. Like, I went
out Saturday and bought new sneakers ’cause my other sneakers
were totally falling apart and the whole time I’m in the store walking
around with these sneakers I felt guilty. And they were only $6.75
on clearance, but I still felt that five dollars or that six dollars I could
have bought two packs of diapers or bought the kids socks and or a
108
sweat shirt for them or something like that and it’s like... [Shakes
her head. Voice trails off\. And then the devil’s on this side [saying]
[pointing to one side of her head] ‘Don’t buy them, don’t buy them’
and the angel on this side [pointing to the other side of her head]
‘Buy them. You can use them. Buy them.’
Sandy feels that in buying things for herself, she is taking away from her children.
Such zero-sum calculations in which the day-to-day needs of parents are pitted against
those of their children were common in both working class and working class poor
families. Though this was more often the case for working class poor consumers,
working class parents were by no means immune to such dilemmas (for further
discussion, see Chapter Four). In addition to clothes for herself, Sandy would like to
get her hair cut and permed. She would also like to be able to go out to eat
occasionally, preferably without her children. Small expenditures such as ordering
take-out pizza for dinner are infrequently made by the Robertsons, much to Sandy’s
dismay.
As Terri’s and Sandy’s experiences indicate, for some working class
consumers, day-to-day encounters with commodity markets can be quite similar to
those of the working class poor. These consumers described feelings of alienation and
sometimes hopelessness that matched the levels expressed by poor consumers in the
study. Debates over whether or not one can afford to buy a $6.75 pair of sneakers
speak to extremely low levels of discretionary purchasing.
In some families, this type of deprivation seemed to be an all but constant part
of life. For most, however, such times came and went in a cyclical —if not wholly
rational— manner. Indeed, in suggesting that U

just like anything, some weeks are
better than others" [emphasis mine] Tern Stevens spoke to the normativeness of
109
constantly shifting budgets in the lives of working class consumers. One week or
month might pass smoothly, with bills paid, food purchased and money left over for
buying items like compact discs or matching placemats and napkins for the kitchen
table. At other times, however, these consumers are hard pressed to fund little “extras"
like these. Because their budgets have only small degrees of freedom, these families
have difficulty accommodating even modest increases in expenses or decreases in
income. When irregular (if not unexpected) expenses arise, such as car repair bills,
home maintenance needs, medical expenses, children’s activity fees, and wedding
gifts, the purchase of other market goods is commonly curtailed. Reductions in income
—from layoffs, unpaid holidays or sick leave— have similar effects. More often than
not, it is a series of expenses (and/or loss of income) that ties these consumers’
hands. Although individually, these expenses may not have a consistent effect on their
relationships to commodity markets, their cumulative effect is to create an unstable
situation in which “something" always seems to come up.
Thus, like the “normal accidents" Charles Perrow (1984) has described with
respect to high technology systems, the tightly-coupled nature of these respondents’
budgets —whereby routine expenses closely match resources— means that irregular
expenses and income reductions can be devastating, if only temporarily. Moreover,
this tight coupling of their budgetary systems means that such setbacks are to be
expected. They are a normal, if not entirely predictable, part of these individuals’ lives
as consumers. When such “accidents” occur, the “wiggle room" enjoyed by working
class consumers quickly disappears. They are left facing commodity markets from
positions that look and feel quite similar to those of the working class poor.
110
The experiences of one family provides a telling example. Linda and Bill Yanelli
live on a hilltop street in Richmond with their eleven year-old son Billy and Linda’s
twenty-two year-old son, Manny. Manny lives in the partially finished basement of their
tidy, two-bedroom home. Linda works for a small landscaping and commercial cleaning
firm. Bill is a semi-skilled laborer, primarily working as a painter.
The Yanellis combined income of about $45,000 is generally sufficient to meet
their bills and expenses, but does not leave much after “the necessities” are taken care
of. The Yanellis live, as Linda put it, “week to week.” They do not keep a bank account
but do save money at home toward particular purchases or to cover periodic bills (e.g.,
property taxes, homeowners and automobile insurance). Bill and Linda have several
bank and department store credit cards but are quite careful about using them, wary of
adding to their significant debt.10 Still, the Yanellis both expressed satisfaction with
their current standard of living. Two years ago they took advantage of an opportunity to
purchase a home from an elderly friend. Though the house has needed significant
repair and remodeling work, the Yanellis are proud to be paying off a mortgage rather
than rent. Linda and Bill have managed to decorate their compact (“not finished")
home in a manner with which they are pleased. Their cars are not the newest models
on the block, but buying new cars is not a priority in the Yanelli household.
Linda is an endearing woman with a friendly smile and an unassuming manner.
She is easy to talk to and we often lingered on the telephone long after setting up our
next interview or field observation. We chatted easily, talking about our day or
whatever was on our minds. As we spoke on the phone one summer evening, Linda
10 Linda is uncomfortable with the $3000 debt they hold. Bill told me that he feels as if it is “under
control,” but that if they add more to it that it would not be.
111
confided that she was feeling highly distressed. With the start of the new school year
only weeks away, she needed to buy clothing for her son Billy, but the money to do so
was simply not there. A number of things were contributing to the Yanellis’ financial
difficulties. For one, paying for day camp and other seasonal expenses makes the
summertime a tight period in their household. As Linda put it during one of our
interviews, summers are “a little stressful.”
Camp is $120 a week...[and] by the time we pay that, and pay

the bills and buy food and take care of the necessities, then
maybe I’ll have $20-25 to make it through the week —for coffee
in the morning, after my gas, I get gas and [Bill] gets gas...After
that, we have nothing.
Winter months were seen as being different:
In the winter months, when I don’t have that and I don’t have all
that summer ‘Can I go here?’ ‘Can I go there?’ things, then I
have a little bit more money to maybe put away.
When I spoke to Linda in August, her usual summer setback was compounded by a
temporary reduction in income. She and Bill had each taken one week off from work
for vacation: neither was paid for that time. While at other times they might have been
able to prepare for the week off, this summer other things seemed to get in the way.
For example, several weeks earlier, her mother and brother had relentlessly “hounded"
her to use money earmarked for bills to join them for a weekend at the beach (“They
tortured me to go. [They said] ‘Why don’t you just say T o heck with the bills, I’m going
to the beach”?’ "). In addition, a car insurance payment due at this time put added
pressure on the family’s budget. These factors combined to make the week without
112
pay particularly difficult for the Yanellis. But even during their week off from work (i.e.,
before the no-pay jolt was directly felt), the family struggled:
It’s just been a bad couple of weeks here... Things have been so
bad. I’ve been so depressed. We had vacation but we had, like,
no money to do anything. I had to borrow $10 from my mom for
milk and bread. I haven’t had to do that in so long... Bill didn’t get
paid [for vacation time], which he used to, I didn’t get paid so it
was like, we couldn't do nothing. We got some money from the
credit card and went fishing but not like [at the beach], not like,
all week. I was so depressed thinking ‘What am I gonna do?’
At the top of Linda’s list of concerns at this time was the back-to-school clothing Billy
needed. She went to a local discount store (similar to Kmart) and saw some things for
him, but did not buy anything. Linda was noticeably dejected about the situation:
“Everything’s so expensive. I guess we’ll go again in a few weeks.”
Eventually, the Yanellis’ situation did change for the better. As with the setback
they had suffered, their good fortunes were the result of a combination of both
increased income and decreased expenses. First, Linda’s brother brought her to an
outlet store he knew of where she was able to buy “name brand” goods for Billy at
deeply discounted prices. When we spoke again after her trip to the outlet, Linda was
overjoyed as she told me about her finds:
I love it there! That place is unbelievable!
I: What’s unbelievable about it?
The prices! They’ve got like all these name brands, Adidas,
Nike, all this stuff at great prices. I just love it! I got all this stuff
for Biily. . . I was so depressed before. I was panicking ‘How’m I
gonna get this stuff?’ Then this happened.
113
Linda spent about $70 at the outlet store. She bought Billy a thick, sports-team sweat
shirt; several button-down flannel and combed cotton shirts; a woven, hooded-pullover;
and three pairs of sweatpants. Bill was impressed too. The next time I was at the
Yanelli house, he encouraged Linda to show me the things she had bought, pointing
out the quality of the goods: “Feel that patch [on the sweatshirt]. That patch alone is
worth $13;" “It’s not cheap stuff."
Following the excitement of the discount outlet shop, the Yanellis’ fortunes
continued to change. Linda “hit the number" in the weekly lottery drawing for $80. More
significantly, however, Bill was offered a new job with a small firm owned by his
present employer. Although he would be doing essentially the same work, the move
would bring a significant pay increase as well as paid holidays, vacation, and overtime.
Several weeks after this change took place, Linda’s grandmother sold her house and
gave her a gift of two thousand dollars. The Yanellis’ financial malaise was lifted,
seemingly as dramatically as it had set in.
This example from the Yanelli family illustrates the type of roller coaster ride on
which working class families often find themselves. Though one month the family has
few financial concerns, things can take on a very different air in the next, only to turn
around once again soon after. This type of situation, whereby one’s fortunes are
meaningfully changed in weekly or monthly intervals was common in these
households. Moreover, this “peaks and valleys" quality was unique to the working class
families in the study. Even the working class poor had a less volatile situation. Those
consumers were more or less stuck in a “valley” of economic malaise. Dramatic dips
(or boosts) to their situation were less likely.
114
For working class consumers, during those times when a “valley” is hit upon in
their financial situation they experience panic and, for some, depression similar to that
regularly experienced by the poor. Like the poor, working class consumers begin to
focus on the small details of purchases, thinking about every gallon of gas, every
container of milk. They become “hyper-consumers” and “non-consumers." Despite
being in generally better stead than their working class poor counterparts, these
consumers remain in sufficiently close proximity to the working class poor to, at least
occasionally, experience first-hand acquisition practices of that same character.
The fact that this is an American study should be stressed at this point. The
generally weak state characteristic of this national context has implications for
individuals’ acquisition experiences. Since Americans pay out-of-pocket for many of
the things which are included in state provisions in most other advanced industrialized
nations, the expenses faced by American consumers are in some respects all the
more random. Paid vacation time of four to six weeks (as well as relatively generous
maternity leave and time off for illness) is the norm in most Western European
countries, making the costly nature of time away from work (as experienced by the
Yanellis) somewhat unique to American workers relative to these counterparts. Other
expenses such as medical costs which can sporadically and without warning bring
financial hardship upon families are similarly a uniquely American issue given the lack
of a socialized medical system. The Yanelli family was, at the time of data collection,
paying off a debt incurred when Linda visited the Emergency Room at their local
hospital. Other expenses, such as the need for a car or the urgency to have repair
115
work done can be said to be all the more pressing issues when there is not a reliable
and extensive public transport system in place.11
Another aspect of working class consumers’ market relations that renders their
experiences similar to the poor is their heavy reliance on money saving strategies.
Since being out of cash by the end of the pay period —or, at times, immediately
following receipt of those funds— was common in working class households,
purchases were routinely made with attention to how they fit into the weekly or bi
weekly budget. In these households, saving money on purchases by locating low
priced goods was deemed essential. Working class respondents shopped for many
types of goods —including clothing for themselves and their children— at the same
discount outlets and low-priced stores as the working class poor.12 Some, but not all,
regularly shopped in thrift stores; one working class family relied heavily on hand-me-
downs provided through an anonymous donor at their children’s school (see Table
3.1).
Indeed, price considerations were central to purchasing in each working class
household. Even the Fallon family, who enjoyed the highest household income in this
group, was extremely careful about spending. Like the modest character of the items
Debbie and Artie listed as things on which they could cut back, Debbie’s idea of a
11 Of course, there are innumerable ways in which the practices of these consumers are
affected by the broader national culture in which they live. Returning to the issue of the weak
American state, one can point to effects on what people buy. With little support for investments
in publicly owned infrastructure and open spaces (e.g., parks and playgrounds), families with
young children may feel compelled to purchase their own individual swing set or other outdoor
play gear for their children. Furthermore, the retail landscape and thus the nature of shopping
endeavors is directly affected by zoning laws which, in the United States, have generally
encouraged out-of-city shopping locations requiring the use of an automobile (Jackson 1985).
12As I discuss in Chapter Eight, upper-middle class consumers also shopped at discount stores,
but the narrower range of goods they purchased from these retailers did not include clothing.
116
Table 3.1 Venues for Obtaining Children’s Clothing, Working Class and
Working Class Poor Households
Household Department Discount Discount Thrift Other/

Store (e.g., Store Outlet Stores Notes
JC Penney (e.g.. (factory
Kmart) seconds)
Working Class
Some mall
Caldwell X X shops for
teen
Estobar X
Fallon X X X
Gaskel X X X Hand-me
downs
Robertson X X X
Stevens X X
Yanelli X* X X
Working Class Poor

Some mall
Conti X X X X shops for
teen
DeStefano X X
Greeley X
Naughton ** X
Warner** X
* Only for larger sized pants unavailable at most children’s stores.
** Non-custodial parents not primarily responsible for purchasing children's clothing.
117
splurge was similarly modest. Her response to my query about “treats" centered on
issues of price and the strategies she would have to employ to pay for the item:
I: Is there anything that you treat yourself with, that you splurge
on?
An outfit, once in a while. If I’m going to a party or something, if I

see that somebody’s having a sale and I see a skirt for $12 I
might splurge and get myself a skirt. Or once in a while if I see a
shirt that I really like, you know, and it costs like $30, you know,
we really can’t afford it, so I'll pay a little on layaway, you know,
so much a week. Or I’ll save until I can get it. But we don’t do it
too often. Once a year, if we’re lucky.
The extent to which spending on day-to-day items remains of real concern,
even to the relatively well-off Fallons, was evident during a trip to the supermarket.
Debbie had cut coupons from the weekly circular before she, Artie, and Kelsey (along
with me as an observer) had arrived at the store. Many of the items the Fallons
purchased were on sale (as Debbie explained, “I try to buy almost everything on sale”)
as part of that week’s “Buy One Get One Free" promotion (e.g., Prego spaghetti
sauce, frozen Salisbury steak dinners). Sticking to the budget is important for the
Fallons. As field notes from the check-out line reveal, Debbie was distraught when the
grocery bill appeared to be higher than she had anticipated:
Debbie glances up and sees the $93 and change sub-totaL Her
face looks very senous and sullen. She is clearly upset Debbie
then sees that the coupons and Buy-One-Get-One-Free
discounts have not been deducted (watching as the cashier
begins to scan them) and waits nervously for the grand total.
She keeps perfectly still with her eyes fixed firmly on the register
and does not say a word. The total comes to 63 dollars and
change, a full 30 dollars cheaper. Debbie cant hide her shy
smile of apparent relief as she lets out a breath of air and says
to me “Did you see that? I saved almost thirty dollars in coupons!
It went down from ninety-three to like sixty-four, almost!”
Debbie's affect changes completely after the sixty-three dollar
118
total comes up. She is bubbly now, clearly relieved to see this
figure. When we get to the parking lot, she repeats the story to
Artie.
While anyone might be surprised to see a grocery bill come out to more than
anticipated, the level of concern conveyed by Debbie’s initial expression of
despondency, coupled with the mixture of relief and joy expressed when the bill was
reduced, was indicative of the attention which Debbie (and, indeed, Artie) devote to
prices and spending. Although she expressed her joy in terms of the thirty dollars she
saved, it would be wrong to see this as simply the “thrill of a bargain." Debbie’s initial
troubled expression came at a point when she believed that the total bill was over
ninety dollars. Her expression was not one of puzzlement but rather of deep concern,
pointing to anxiety over the implications of a high bill.
Indeed, the Fallons are careful about most expenditures. While small items
such as bus fare might not give them pause for concern, other items such as children’s
sneakers, winter jackets, and audiotapes are purchased only when it is clear that the
best price has been secured. Special trips to stores to take advantage of sale prices
for planned purchases were common. The search for bargains is central to their
shopping trips, as Debbie’s description of clothes shopping indicates:
I: You were saying about clothes shopping for the kids. Where
do you usually go? How does that happen?
Um...l usually try to go to Kmart, or one of the wholesale stores,

wherever we can find, you know, a bargain. If I find something
on sale, we'll go. I look through sale papers to see who has what
on sale, and when.
I: Urn, sales papers like in the regular newspapers, or...
119
Usually Thursdays or Fridays, you get a um, you get a pack of

sales papers that start Sunday. They’re usually Kmart, Caldor,
and then we wait 'til Sunday when we get all of Sunday’s papers.
I: And what kind of, you said wholesale stores?
Yeah, like J.C. Penney’s [outlet], you know, the one down at
Jefferson’s Comers [Mall], or there are a couple of other ones,
like Sander’s Outlet is one, that we go to a lot. They have like
discount clothes there, like Lee Jeans [for $15 to $20] . You just
really gotta go through the clothes to see what they have. They
have name-brand jeans and what-not. And I buy the kids
clothes, because they’re reasonable.
I: And what do you look for when you’re buying clothes for them,
what’s important to you?
Cheap! And something they like, that they’ll wear. They pick out
what they want and I’ll look at the price, and if it seems
reasonable, I’ll say 'yes’ or ‘no.’ It depends what it is, and how
much it is. I won’t spend $30 for a shirt, for the kids. It’s
ridiculous.
I: So how much do you usually pay for a shirt?
Uh, $10. I'll maybe go as high as $12. Unless it’s a special shirt,
for a special occasion, I might let them go for a little bit more.
For Debbie, questions about shopping solicited answers that focused on money-saving
strategies. For her and other working class consumers, buying goods at discounted
prices, at discount stores, and/or on sale was synonymous with “buying goods.” It was
the only way she shopped. Throughout the interviews and observations with this
family, Debbie made frequent remarks about the need to closely monitor spending
(e.g., “I just don’t have it;" “I can’t afford those prices;" “I don’t know what the other
parents are doing to get the money, but there’s no way").
Thus, like the working class poor, these consumers are careful shoppers with
respect to price on most things they buy. Though they do not live as close to the line
(or, in Bourdieu’s terms, live “further from necessity”) as Janet DeStefano and other
120
poor consumers, their approach to purchasing is far from casual. The Fallons (and
others) do not see this as a matter of choice, but rather the only way that they can
obtain the goods they want.
Why Are Working Class Consumers so Similar to the Poor?
Before moving on to the next chapter and a more in-depth analysis of working
class and working class poor practices of acquisition there is a question to consider.
Why are the experiences of the working class and the poor so similar? More
specifically, why do the greater financial (if not social) resources enjoyed by the
working class not alter their relationship to commodity markets more substantially?
Several related factors would appear to be at issue. For one, working class
families living on low incomes (e.g., families headed by single women) but who do not
receive state benefits often live with budgets as tight as those of the poor. Such
families that do not receive subsidies for their basic housing and food costs can be left
with similar amounts of “spending money” after these goods have been secured as
poor consumers who do receive such subsidies. Indeed, as numerous studies have
shown, when the value of these benefits is considered, working class consumers who
earn slightly above designated eligibility thresholds (or have assets which exceed
those thresholds or choose not to tap these resources) are often no better-off
financially than those receiving benefits (see Edin and Lein 1997).13 While there are
13 For example, Terri Stevens (working class) is a single mother with two children. She earns
about $23,500 a year. She receives no child support and holds no credit cards. Terry currently
pays $800 a month in rent (including all utilities) for a three bedroom apartment. Deducting these
costs from Terri’s income, Terri is left with approximately $13,900 for other expenses and
purchases.
Mary Conti (working class poor) is a single mother of three. She earns about $9,000
($657/month gross) a year (under a ten-month employment contract), working part-time. In
addition, she receives regular child support payments of $300 per month. This past year, Mary
received approximately $2000 in food stamps. Taken together, her income from these three
121
important advantages to earning one’s money in the labor market rather than receiving
state subsidies —in terms of human capital investments as well as issues of
independence and stigma— with regards to of the financial resources available for
purchasing market goods, full-time earners with incomes near the poverty line can be
left with little more (or, indeed, less) spending money than the poor.
Relatedly, much of the “extra" money held by working class consumers with
steady, (relatively) well-paid jobs is eaten up by monthly bills (e.g., rent, utility charges,
credit card payments) that the poor do not currently pay. In addition to state subsidies,
poor consumers rely on family and friends to provide either in-kind services (e.g.,
shared housing, meal provision) or cash gifts or loans. Either way the poor are
oftentimes not paying for at least some of their basic living expenses. By contrast,
working class consumers are generally meeting these expenses. In doing so, however,
they reduce the amount money they have available to spend on market goods.14 In
other words, a portion of working class consumers’ “extra" money goes not to market
goods but to paying for basic living expenses for which the working class poor do not
currently devote resources.
Again, there are important advantages to the situation of the working class.
Being able to pay one’s basic living expenses is an important mark of independence,
even status as an adult (Rubin 1976; Willis 1990). In addition, for those able to keep
sources was about $14,600. Mary pays $109 a month for the three-bedroom townhouse she
rents in a new public housing development. Her utility bills (gas and electricity) run her $744 a
year for a total of $1,308 in annual housing and utility costs. Deducting these costs from Mary’s
income, Mary is left with approximately $13,292 for other expenses and purchases. Thus, she
has approximately $600 a year, or $50 a month less than Tern. Considering that part of Mary’s
income is net (i.e., $3,000 in child support payments), Mary probably has virtually the same
amount of “extra" money available each month as Terri.
122
current with their bills, working class consumers are establishing payment histories that
may help them in future applications for credit. Moreover, the debts being incurred by
the working class poor (e.g., cash loans from family or friends; good will from kin who
offer housing or food) are not being taken on by the more self-sufficient working class
consumers. Nevertheless, in devoting their resources toward meeting these expenses,
the day-to-day funds with which working class consumers approach retail markets are
significantly reduced.
Another place where the “extra" money in working class budgets goes is to
purchases which are, in one form or another, investments or what might be considered
productive expenses. Some families are paying private school tuition for their children
(Caldwell; Gaskel), while others have moved to better neighborhoods —thus paying
higher rents or mortgages than they otherwise might—to access superior public
schools (Estobar; Stevens).15 In addition, some working class families have purchased
homes that have high carrying and/or maintenance costs. For the Robertson family, for
example, the monthly payments on their newly purchased home—including taxes and
insurance— came to far more than they had anticipated ($807 per month in mortgage
costs compared to $500 per month in rent). For the Robertsons, virtually all of their
“extra” money is now going toward their mortgage. Other families with more modest
mortgages have been saddled with high repair and renovation costs. The Gaskel
family, for example, had to take out a second mortgage to repair the $30,000 worth of
14 Of course, credit card payments include, at least to some extent, payment toward consumer
goods (and not more general housing services) and are, in that respect, simply a roundabout
way of spending on consumer goods.
15 In the case of Terri Stevens, Terri lived for a short time with her boyfriend at his family's home
in an inner-city neighborhood. Terri decided not to stay on in that situation (despite the economic
advantages) and to move to West Richmond primarily because of concerns about the
neighborhood school.
123
termite damage inflicted on their home four years ago. In another household, although
Linda and Bill Yanelli’s “fixer-upper” home is a source of great pride, it has been
difficult for them to keep up with the costs of repair work, even with Bill providing the
labor. The Yanellis have a long list of both essential (e.g., retiling the shower wall) and
desirable (e.g., extending the “one-person" kitchen) repairs and modifications. Virtually
all of their “extra" money goes toward these expenses.
In working class households these expenses represented a significant drain on
current household resources. Tuition payments, the costs of owning a home, and
similar expenditures (such as payments on newer model automobiles)16 often left
working class consumers as strapped as the working class poor with respect to access
to everyday market goods (e.g., clothing, food, decorative items), despite their higher
standard of living. While there can be little question that “investment spending" of this
type will likely reap future, if not current, rewards (e.g., the tax benefits of home
ownership; the potential for profit when the home is sold; having educated children with
enhanced labor market prospects) in terms of everyday relationships to market goods,
working class consumers with such expenses are not as far from necessity as might
be assumed. As a result, their everyday encounters with the market take on a flavor
not all that different from the experiences of the poor.
It is also noteworthy that the similarities in the experiences of the working class
and the working class poor may also be attributed, at least in part, to the fact that the
16 An automobile is what economists refer to as a “wasting asset." It depreciates in value over

time and with each use (with the exception, of course, of carefully maintained now “classic”
cars). In this sense, payments toward a newer vehicle cannot easily be characterized as
“investments" in the same sense as education or real estate. Nevertheless, with fewer repair
problems and greater overall comfort and, perhaps, aesthetic sensibility, newer vehicles offer
consumers what may be seen as an important increase in quality of life. While such an expense
is not necessarily an investment in the future, it may be seen as an investment in the present.
124
working class poor as represented here are not, in the main, chronically poor (see
Chapter Two). In other words, they are not “the underclass" (Wilson 1989). With
perhaps the exception of Janet DeStefano, these consumers have not, for long
periods, opted out of the labor market altogether. They do not earn money through
illegal or illicit means (although some have, in the distant past, done so). They are not
part of a network of individuals detached from the mainstream of society. Possibly
related to issues of race (with poverty among urban whites being less concentrated
than that of urban blacks. See Massey and Denton 1995; Massey and Eggers 1990)
the poor consumers in the present study are not as severely disadvantaged as other
segments the impoverished population are. Thus, their relationship to the more stable
working class is closer than it might otherwise be.
Summary
In sum, the working class are not the working class poor. There are differences
as members of each group will testify. Working class respondent, Tern Stevens, has,
in the past, been homeless. She would be the first to acknowledge that her inability to
take her children to Great Adventure (amusement park) means little compared to not
being able to keep a roof over their heads. The relentless deprivation and, for many,
anxiety associated with life in poverty is unique to the working class poor.
At the same time, the experiences of the working class share many of the
characteristics of those of the poor. While these consumers are further from necessity
than the working class poor, they are not so far from it that the acquisition of goods
can be taken lightly in these households, (or at least not consistently so). Even those
working class families with the greatest financial resources at their disposal,
nevertheless episodically dip into situations in which they approach commodity
125
markets with resources that are as meager as those of the poor. These families are
not so far from necessity to feel confident that they can forego money saving
strategies. Indeed, while the working class are not as consistently excluded from the
world of consumption as the poor they do nevertheless share with them a —albeit less
intense— scarcity of resources that similarly colors their relationships to commodity
markets. Although the immediate circumstances of working class consumers were
generally less dire than those of the poor, the strategies they used in accessing goods
(e.g., buying sale items, buying from discount stores) were quite similar.
126
CHAPTER 4
CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER:

THE THINKING WORK IN WORKING CLASS AND WORKING CLASS POOR
ACQUISITION PRACTICES
Introduction
In this chapter I build upon the previous discussion to consider in greater depth
the mental (and emotional) processes associated with the acquisition of market goods
for the working class and working class poor. In doing so, I provide a more specified
basis from which to consider the extent to which class shapes the experiences of
consumers in this regard. As discussed in Chapter One, proponents of the “death of
class” thesis have suggested that class matters little to activities of this realm.
The analysis is organized around two themes which have received
considerable attention, both in Boudieu’s analysis of class and the habitus, as well as
in social psychological studies of class, more generally. First, I explore the temporal
dimensions of acquisition practices in these households. I analyze the ways in which
the timing of these practices is oriented and its effects on the “thinking work" in which
these individuals as consumers engage. Second, I consider the character of
acquisition practices among these consumers with regards to the clarity of the
relationships at issue. I show how the mental processes in which working class and
working class poor consumers are engaged routinely involve calculations which are
clear and straightforward in character. The limited degrees of freedom characteristic of
these families’ budgets means that there are often few options to consider when
deciding about, for example, whether to make a purchase or from where the money to
do so will come. Thus, the mental activities in which these working class and working
127
class poor individuals as consumers engage is, in many ways, straightforward and
clear.
I begin with the issue of time. Before engaging Bourdieu’s work on the role of
time (or that of other researchers), I discuss my own findings on the manner in which
time is conceived of and acted upon by consumers of the working classes. Bourdieu's
insights are then considered as I further contextualize my analysis in discussion of
notion of “deferred gratification," the issue around which much of the analysis of
working class and working class poor consumption has taken place.
On Time
Conceiving of Time: When a Week is a Meaningful Interval
Ray Gaskel (working class) does not like being sick on Fridays. While he never
looks forward to the sore throats or fevers that might keep him home from work, he is
especially wary of feeling under the weather on the last day of the work-week. More
specifically, it is being sick on a “pay Friday” that Ray dreads. He knows that more
often than not he must go in to work on such days, regardless of what the
thermometer reads. As his wife Mary Ellen explained, “If he gets sick on a Friday that’s
a pay Friday, he actually goes to work just to get paid, even though he really doesn’t
want to go."
The reason Ray goes to work on such days is because, like other working class
and working class poor families, by the time payday arrives the Gaskeis are all but out
of cash. Since the family relies on cash-on-hand to make most of their purchases,
waiting till Monday for Ray to collect his earnings means that acquisition in the Gaskel
household would have to wait too. For the Gaskeis and other working class and
working class poor consumers, the final days before paychecks (or other sources of
128
income) arrive are different than those immediately following its receipt. Relying on
scarce, available resources to make purchases means that the timing of acquisition in
these families is not random.
Indeed, for these consumers, days of the week and weeks of the month are
meaningfully distinguished based on where they fall relative to the rhythms of income
and expense. Food shopping, for example, almost always takes place within one or
two days of income receipt. This was true in virtually every working class family I spoke
to and shopped with. In working class poor households, respondents reported doing
their food shopping immediately after cashing checks or receiving food stamps. For
these consumers, doing so is a matter of urgency. As one woman explained, “By [the
time I get the food stamps], I have basically nothing."
Again, the Fallon family (working class) offers a useful illustration. Debbie
Fallon is paid each week while Artie is paid bi-weekly. This distinction is central to the
way Debbie and Artie, as consumers, conceive of time. For them, the weeks when
both are paid are different from those when only Debbie receives a paycheck. For
example, Debbie told me that she and Artie only go food shopping during dual-pay
weeks: “I only go food shopping when we both get paid. That’s when I go food
shopping. When I have the money.” As she further explained, “Try to go food shopping
on one pay [shakes her head and dismissively waves her hand downward. Then, in a
hushed voice] Forget it.” Thus, in addition to going on particular days (i.e., those
immediately following income receipt), Debbie and Artie do their food shopping only in
particular weeks.
In addition, shopping for other, more sporadically purchased items is also
spaced out according to the receipt of funds. The Fallons either shop for goods during
129
a dual-pay week or, alternatively, rely on layaway plans —requiring multiple visits to
the store— in order to spread out the payment process. Debbie explained how she
approaches clothes shopping for her two pre-teens:
Most of the times we put it on layaway and pay it off [over several
weeks] or wait until we both get paid. Like, for Christmas, I’ll go out one
week for Bobby’s clothes and then two weeks later, go out for Patty’s
clothes.J’ll try to break it down because it’s easier that way in pay
weeks. Or, if I work on a weekend [at my side job] and I make a nice,
decent bit I’ll go out and just get whatever I see, just, whatever I want
[right then].
In attempting to make these purchases, Debbie divides time into what are, for her,
manageable segments. Notably, it is not only income receipt which shapes Debbie’s
practices but also a competition between expenses. One purchase (or set of
purchases) can crowd out others, pushing the purchase of some items further into the
future. As a result, not only are single-pay weeks off-limits for, for example, Patty’s
clothing purchases, but so too is the week when Bobby’s clothes are bought.
Debbie was not alone in her weekly-oriented thinking with respect to
purchasing goods. Artie also differentiated spending in this fashion. During one of our
interviews, I asked him whether he felt he was able to get the things he needs or
wants. Artie told me that he did, explaining it this way:
There is stuff out there that we want and we can’t afford it. We will
either put away so much money or wait until next pay. A lot of times
we’ll say “When we both get paid we’ll get that.” We both get paid and
both pays are right there. Like this week, she gets paid. She’s the only
one that gets paid this week, so it’s not much. If we go out and see
something and we can’t afford it this pay, it’s only her pay. I’ll say ‘Fine.
We’ll wait until next pay.’ Next week we both get paid, we can buy it.
130
In a way, Artie’s remarks go beyond that of Debbie. Artie identifies affordable items as
those which can be purchased within a given pay period with cash on hand. Items that
the Fallons “can’t afford” during weeks when only Debbie’s check is received are
viewed as affordable the following week when both checks are in hand and the family’s
current income doubles. Thus, the yardstick by which Artie determines whether or not
goods are within reach is based on a one-week perspective. He does not explicitly
consider the cost of the item on its own or in relation to a broader framework of time,
such as annual income. In this way, Artie indicates that not only is paying for goods
oriented around weekly earnings, but in fact, the goods which are selected are chosen
on this basis. If a purchase can fit into a given week’s budget, it is deemed
“affordable."
In a slightly different vein, in the Yanelli household, purchasing is paced
according to the payment of regular household expenses, namely bills (e.g., mortgage,
utilities, credit cards). Linda and Bill Yanelli receive their wages and pay the household
bills each Friday. Bills that arrive during the week are paid on Friday evening.1 The
Yanellis also set aside money each Friday for the monthly mortgage payment. This
method of money management represents a shift in Linda’s pattern from earlier times
in her life when, as a teen mother, she regularly ignored bills and was evicted from
rental apartments. Today, Linda feels that paying bills the week they arrive -regardless
of due date- allows her to maintain control over her precarious financial situation.
Doing so, however, has implications for acquisition in her household. For Linda, it
1 The Yanellis set aside cash for their bills on Friday evenings after they receive their earnings.
The bills do not actually get paid, however, until the next day when Linda goes to get money
orders at a nearby check-cashing facility.
131
means that different amounts of money are available for spending during different
weeks of the month.
I want a bike...I’m working on that. I saw one for $79.
I: And how would that work out? Would you pay...
Well, there’s one week during the month that no bills come. For some
reason they all come this week, that week and that week. And then, that
one week, if I just happen to have the money, I’ll buy it.
Hence, buying a bicycle is something that Linda would do only during one week of the
month. For her, each week represents a discrete interval of time, the meaning of which
is linked to possibilities for acquisition.2
In short, the fact that working class and working class poor consumers rely on
current income to make purchases has important effects on the way time is
experienced and conceived of in these households. It influences both the timing of
acquisition activity (i.e., when purchases are and are not made) and, perhaps more
insidiously, the ways in which time is conceived of by these consumers. The pace of
purchasing in these households is not random. Importantly, as I show in Chapter Six,
weekly segments of time, so central to the thinking of working class and working class
poor consumers, are altogether meaningless for upper-middle class consumers in the
study.
2 It is also interesting to note Linda’s understanding that she would buy the bicycle if she “just
happens” to have the money that week. Linda knows that her financial situation is always subject
to change. For a discussion of the importance of “normal accidents" for working class
consumers, see Chapter Three.
132
Immediacy without Hedonism: A Current-Time Orientation
In Chapter Three, we saw how acquisition can be a cause for worry and
despair for working class and working class poor consumers. Respondents told of the
“panic" they, at times, experience in worrying about accessing the things they need. An
important dimension of these experiences is the element of time. When Diane
Naughton (working class poor) spoke about her worries about having money for
tomorrow’s bus ride or for her and her husband’s next meal, the fact that these difficult
to pay for needs were immediate was central to her experience of worry. Worrying
about the things one needs today —or even a week or month from today— has an air
of urgency that more future-oriented concerns simply do not. The fact that the need or
want is immediate (i.e., today, this week, this winter) intensifies the worry by shrinking
the span of time within which it takes place. As I argue in Chapter Six, concerns about
more future-oriented expenses (e.g., retirement; higher education) are framed within a
much longer span of time and, as a result, are less intense.
Indeed, the calendar and the watch play a central role in shaping working class
and working class poor consumers’ experiences. In addition to the immediacy of the
concerns of these consumers, much o f that which weighs on their minds are
purchases that are keyed to a particular time. That is, needs and wants often come
with a (more or less immediate) deadline. If dinner is not eaten within several hours of
lunch, stomachs begins to growl. Other less biologically-driven wants and needs which
preoccupy these consumers are also linked to the watch or calendar. The “panic”
Linda Yanelli experienced during her summertime financial setback (see Chapter
Three) was linked to the fact that the start of the school year was looming and, as
such, new clothes for her son were in order. While not necessary in the sense that Billy
133
would otherwise have nothing to wear, Linda’s desire to comply with the norm of
children beginning the new school year with a fresh wardrobe and unscuffed shoes
was palpable. The fact that this norm comes with a current-time (i.e., weeks rather
than years away) deadline (i.e., first day of the school year) was important to Linda’s
experience of panic. It infused an air of immediacy into the thinking and feeling in
which she was, at that point, engaged.
Other working class and working class poor parents too spoke of things that
concern them or weigh on their minds, or, simply that they devote attention to —it is
not always panic or even worry— as consumers. These things routinely were both
current-time and deadline-oriented. Terri Stevens (working class, divorced mother of
two), for example, mentioned her eight year-old son’s upcoming birthday. It was early
November when we spoke:
I always give them a party [for their birthdays]. Veronica had a

sleepover in July and [pause] it didn’t cost that, maybe, I think I got
pizzas and cake and, you know, snack foods. So, the usual stuff and
then the next morning [the eight of them] had breakfast. But all in all
with the gift and the party I must spend at least a hundred-something
dollars on each kid. Between all the, you know [trails off]. Now Jason’s
birthday’s coming up in a couple of weeks and I know he’s gonna want
a party. I don’t know how I’m gonna do it cause Christmas is coming.
But, I don't want to slight him cause she had a party. Boys usually don’t
have, like, sleepovers, so, I was thinking maybe I could maybe just take
him and a couple of his friends to the bowling alley or movies or
something. Take them out for pizza...Plus gifts, of course.
As a consumer living on a tight budget, Tern’s thoughts are routinely directed toward
purchases needed for getting through the current period. In this instance, Terri had two
consumption deadlines looming: a child’s birthday and Christmas. Weeks before her
son’s birthday, Terri was already mentally strategizing (“I was thinking...”) about how
she might handle the expenses. She needed to square her sense o f fairness (“I don’t
134
want to slight him cause she had a party”) and sense of appropriate celebration with
her budget, and she needed to do so by the time her son’s ninth birthday came
around.3
Some working class and working class poor consumers spoke of attempts to
plan ahead and thus wrest some control over the effects of the calendar on their lives.
Others maintained that they were unable to do so, as something else always seemed
to come along and claim earmarked funds (as one respondent put it “that just never
works out for me"). Indeed, with tightly coupled budgets, other things frequently get in
the way. Janet DeStefano, for example, told me about her attempt to plan ahead for
winter by using a sporting goods store’s layaway plan to purchase a coat for her
eleven-year old daughter. In this instance, the “deadline” was the onset of the cold,
winter weather. Like other adolescents, Linda outgrows her coat virtually every year.
On this occasion, when an early winter set in, Janet had little choice but to deplete her
monthly budget in order to secure the coat.
I went to Herman’s and I put a coat for Linda on layaway [speaking

softly now, in a somber tone]. And then it started getting chilly. So, I
was gonna have it on layaway for three months cause it was a
hundred dollar coat and urn, I paid the first payment on it and then
the second one came and it started getting chilly and I thought, 'Oh,
she’s gonna need this.’ So I had to take the whole rest of it and just
put it down to get the coat out...
I: Did that mean that the money came from somewhere else?
It came from the Social Security check. But I like to see that if I can
hold on, like, you know, I pay my bills and everything, if I can hold
onto a certain amount like for gas and cigarettes... and sometimes I
can’t do that. You know, like, I had to give all the money up that
3 It is interesting to note the role of norms in Terri’s experience. In this instance, one norm (of
gifts and parties for children's birthdays) was hurting Tern — in the sense that it represented an
unwelcome expense— while another (that boys do not have the more costly sleepover
parties),at least partly saved her.
135
month for the coat. But I don’t, um, I don’t worry about it. If I have to
do it, I have to do it. I’ll only do it if it’s really necessary, like a winter
coat. I thought she was gonna need it. That’s why I took it out.
Things like winter coats and birthday gifts are the kind of requirements with which all
parents must contend. However, it is often with great difficulty that working class and
working class poor parents meet such expenses. As a result, these items take on a
significance in these consumers’ mental calculation from which others are free.
Working class and working class poor parents expend mental energy in the form of
worry, calculating, or simply thinking about upcoming expenses to which others devote
little attention.
This “thinking work” (or “mental work;" see DeVault 1991) in which these
consumers engage takes on a particular character. The fact that the usefulness of
many of the goods these consumers (and, indeed, all consumers) buy is linked to the
clock or the season amplifies the tone of these issues in the thinking of working class
and working class poor consumers. Although birthdays and holidays may not
necessarily fall at the most opportune times, such occasions are not easily ignored,
particularly, it seems, when the items in question are for one’s children. Indeed, the
needs and wants of children often require immediate attention. Children want the latest
video game now, not two years from now when the game has become pass§.4 The
calendar moves, wants change, children grow.
Bourdieu, the “Culture o f Poverty” and the Element of Time: In developing his
arguments regarding the centrality of practice to habitus, generally, and class relations,
4 Indeed, for practical (i.e, the rapid physical and mental development which characterizes this
stage of the lifecourse) and socio-cultural reasons (e.g., views of childhood as a special time
136
in particular, Bourdieu argues that practice is “intrinsically defined by its tempo"
(1977:8). The pace, or rhythm of life is structured by its conditions which, as discussed
in Chapter One, are linked primarily to the “distance from necessity." Indeed, Bourdieu
is quite explicit with regards to the issue of time-orientation and conception and the
ways class plays into it. He argues that working class life is characterized by an air of
“immediacy” and “urgency.” Speaking of the manner of consumption, Bourdieu
explains it this way:
The principle of the most important differences in the order of life-style

and, even more, of the ‘stylization of life’ lies in the variations in
objective and subjective distance from the world, with its material
constraints and temporal urgencies. (1984:376)
For Bourdieu these “temporal urgencies” under which the working classes live, lead
them to orient themselves toward the present. Bourdieu suggests that consumers of
the working classes are “hedonistic," unable to (or, perhaps, less patronizingly, that
they do not) defer gratification beyond the present moment. In this respect, Bourdieu’s
work bears significant resemblance to “culture of poverty” arguments (Lewis 1969),
and has been criticized, as such (Jenkins 1992; Sharp 1980). While he does not
suggest that it is a character flaw of the working class nor some inherent class-linked
trait which causes poverty (i.e., that the poor are poor because they cannot defer
gratification) he does, nevertheless, invoke the language of hedonism (for example, he
refers to the “spontaneous materialism" (1984:180) characteristic of working class life.
In his sympathetic interpretation, Bourdieu argues that the “propensity to
sacrifice immediate satisfactions to expected satisfactions" is a luxury the working
Aires 1962; Zelizer 1985), items addressing the needs and wants of children are both ever-
looming and difficult to put off or disregard. See further discussion below.
137
classes simply do not have. These consumers make the (correct) calculation that the
“probability of future satisfactions" is not in their favor. As a result, they live in a way
that is appropriate under their conditions of life:
The hedonism which seizes day by day the rare satisfactions (‘good
times’) of the immediate present is the only philosophy conceivable to
those who ‘have no future’ and, in any case, little to expect from the
future. (1984:181-183)
My research suggests that the acts of obtaining goods do in fact orient
consumers thinking toward the present. Acquisition processes structure the mental
activities of working class and working class poor consumers in ways that privilege an
immediate timeframe. However, this occurs in particular ways. Because each week (or
day or month) represents a unique period of time, these consumers contend in a
conscious manner with “the present." The present is central to their thinking because
each day or week requires particular, deliberate actions in order to be accomplished.
Thus, working class consumers negotiate life with a cast of mind that invariably gives
preference to current concerns.
This perspective on time is unique to the working classes and has wide ranging
ramifications. As scholars of time have shown, our interpretation and internalization of
the notion of time is foundational for how we view and experience the world (Adams
1990; McGrath 1988). One way to grasp the effects of time orientation is to draw on an
example from a very different type of event, namely that of a woman in labor. To most
of us in our everyday lives, a minute is a largely irrelevant interval of time. We treat
one as highly similar to the next; one is, more or less, interchangeable with another.
But for a woman experiencing the contractions of labor, one minute is not the same as
the next. Under these circumstances (of natural childbirth!), a minute takes on an
138
altogether different meaning. The minute during which a contraction is felt is different
from the minute immediately following it or, for that matter, the minute before the next
contraction is initiated. Suddenly, minutes count, and the accomplishment of each
requires active attention and participation. During such time, the woman’s perception
of time (as well as that of those around her) dramatically shrinks, from everyday life
where minutes are largely insignificant and pass without notice, to a context in which
they matter a great deal.
Though by no means as intense as the minute-by-minute orientation of women
in labor, as consumers, the working class and working class poor experience time in a
context characterized by the relative urgency of their class situation. Thus, the
activities of obtaining goods contribute in a quite particular way to the creation of a
present-time orientation among the working class.5 As consumers, these individuals
experience time in what might be called “micro-intervals." This suggests that
Bourdieu’s arguments regarding the French working classes as oriented toward the
present may, in this regard, apply to the American context as well.6 The present
research, however, goes beyond Bourdieu’s work to show specifically how such an
orientation might come about.
An important question remains, however, regarding to the extent to which this
orientation contributes to a hedonistic attitude among consumers of the working
classes? Are these consumers unwilling or unable to defer gratification? While
evidence from the present study suggests that these consumers are, indeed, focused
5 The cultural specificity of the pace of life has been documented by anthropologists in a variety
of settings. See Jones (1988) fora review.
139
on the present (at least with respect to issues of acquisition), it is not at all clear that
this translates into a inability or unwillingness to defer gratification. On the contrary, in
talking with these consumers about how, precisely, they go about obtaining goods, it
became quite clear that immediate gratification was a rarity in their experience.
Instead, as I show below, the conditions of their lives were such that they generally
envisioned purchases in their minds long before they were able to access the goods.
For these consumers, there is often a long period of “knowing about” a purchase
before it takes place. What may appear to be an “impulse purchase" is often not that at
all (Wood 1995).
Deferred Gratification and the Backlog of Working Class Wants: The working
class and working class poor consumers I spoke to and shopped with routinely think
about and, at times, act upon consumption needs and wants long before they actually
make a purchase. While the working class poor were more likely to have items of
greater urgency in mind —and thus, had more intense experiences in this regard—
working class consumers also regularly stored up requests for market goods. Things
like small pieces of furniture, new shoes, a second VCR for the kids’ room were often
pointedly thought about for weeks or months before the purchase was made. Larger
items like a home computer or big-screen television always had a long lead-up period
before being purchased. Sometimes, particularly for more costly purchases, working
class consumers actively prepared for acquisition by saving up the necessary funds or
working a “side job” to raise the cash. Other times, it was simply a case of waiting until
the right time when they “happened to have" the money and located a bargain. Indeed,
6 It should be noted that the evidence I provide here regards the experiences of these individuals
as consumers and cannot be taken as evidence of a general time-orientation among the
140
often it was a rather serendipitous converging of several factors that allowed for a
standing request to be filled, as in the case of Eileen Caldwell (receptionist, divorced,
mother of three) and the purchase of a television.
I: Tell me about the TV...
I knew I had to get one but, I mean, the other one was okay and all,
but it was definitely time [for a new one]. [My son’s] friend had the
same thing with his. The picture gets all funny, you know? And he told
me it was the picture tube which, they say it really don’t make sense to
try to fix it...So I was in Kmart, me and the kids were there...and then I
seen this one was on sale, which I figured it was a good buy.
I: How much was it?
Three hundred-nineteen dollars. And it was [originally] like maybe

three ninety-something, you know. I just seen it and I seen it was a
brand name and uh, and I figured how much of a discount it was. I
had the money from my tax check and we needed, probably really
needed the TV. Cause we only had that [old] one that I have upstairs.
I: So, you had the money with you? Did you go out looking...
No, no. I actually, I had to go home and then go back again just to get
it. No, I wasn’t looking, I wasn't gonna buy it right then but when I
seen it...l mean, I knew, when I got my tax check I figured that I could
get one cause I had the money and the other one was, like I said, it
was going for a while.
I: How long was it, with the picture being funny?
Oh it had been like that for a while.
I: Months? A year?
Maybe a year. But I was afraid it was just gonna go. It still works,
though [ilaughter].
In this instance, Eileen’s purchase could be viewed as impulsive or otherwise related to
an inability to delay gratification. Indeed, it was only about one week after she received
working classes. Other areas of life not considered here, may provide contrasting experiences.
141
her refund check that she bought the television set. Nevertheless, despite the fact that
she bought the set shortly after receiving the funds, Eileen’s “gratification” in making
the purchase was, by no means, immediate. In fact, there was a significant period
(“maybe a year") during which Eileen “knew" she needed a new set prior to her making
the purchase. Thus, far from impulsive or even present-time oriented, Eileen’s
thoughts were, in this instance, directed toward a backlog of consumption needs and
wants. Indeed, for consumers of the working classes it is often yesterday’s (or, last
year’s) desires and requirements which are met with today’s money.
In another working class household, Bill Yanelli experienced a long waiting
period before he was able to purchase a door for the (in-house) entrance to his
basement. I was with Bill for this particular shopping trip to a home supply store. When
we were in and out of the store in a matter of minutes, I asked Bill if that was because
he had recently been to this store (as he had told me earlier). He casually indicated
that his swiftness was rooted elsewhere. He had envisioned the purchase for quite
some time:
Bill hoists the door over his head and heads back out to the parking lot
I say “That was quick. You had been here before, with Ricky, right? You
knew what you were getting?" “I’ve known for three years. Just a matter
of being able to do it.” Bill speaks in his usual, matter-of-fact tone. He
does not sound bitter, just accepting that you cannot always get what
you want when you want it.
As with Eileen, Bill had a significant lead-up period prior to the time he was able to
make this purchase.7 The purchase involved a degree of “pre-spending" mental
activity, whereby Bill maintained an active mental file on the desired purchase. Again,
he “knew” precisely what he was going to get:
142
Unsurprisingly, this “catching up" flavor in working class acquisition practices
was more acute for the poor. Relying on incomes inadequate or barely sufficient to
meet their needs, the working class poor postpone purchasing for as long as possible
before heading to the shops. For them, it is common for items to fall into a state of
decay before they can be replaced. This was apparent in Frank Warner's (working
class poor) description of his purchasing habits:
Basically, I go and get stuff when I need it. In other words, I don’t
plan in advance or anything like that. Like if I need gas, I’ll take the
car right to “E” before I put gas in it. I’m not like a half-tank guy that
I always keep a half tank in there. I just, I can’t. Uh, basically the
same with clothes ...I got a pair of pants on now, its got a little hole.
I should replace them, or I should throw them out. But I think I can
take them to a tailor tomorrow for two bucks he’ll put a patch on
them...Even with medical. Things gotta be real, like, I’ll wait till the
last minute. If I have a cold I’ll wait two or three days, maybe take
some over-the-counter stuff and use the doctor as a last resort.
When Frank says he does “not plan in advance" he means that he does not
immediately do anything about the fact that his car will eventually run out of gas or his
tom jeans will need to be replaced. This is a luxury he “can’t" afford. It does not,
however, mean that he does not think about it. During another interview, Frank told me
about the part he needed for his car. Ideally, he would like to have the part replaced
now, but he intends to wait a few months before doing so:
Like I said, I need this oxygen sensor now. But I know I can go
through the whole winter without it because the air's colder. [In the]
summertime it’s more noticeable. So I'll take it in March or April,
buy the sensor, give [the mechanic] twenty bucks, he'll throw it on.
7 The price of the door was $161.22, including a discount for a coupon Bill redeemed.
143
Although Frank will not buy the oxygen sensor for his car until the spring, he knows
now —several months ahead of time— that he will make the purchase. In a similar
vein, Janet DeStefano (working class poor) told me about a purchase she had on her
mind:
Now I’m looking into, I have to get the money together to go get
mattresses for [my daughters] 'cause they’re really, they’re getting bad.
I: How long have they been around?
Awhile. Not a while. I don’t even know how long.
I: Ten years?
Uh huh. So, they need new mattresses on their beds. It’s just, I haven’t
been able to do it.
With such limited financial resources, Janet has a hard time accumulating the funds
necessary for such a purchase. At the time of our interview (late October), she was
trying to hold onto as much money as she could to pay for expenses associated with
Thanksgiving and Christmas. She knew she would not be able to do anything about
the needed mattresses until January, at the earliest. Still, it was on her mind:
I: And do you have any idea how much those would be?
No. But I guess...you know, I like Sears. I like their quality of stuff. I
think maybe I’ll gonna go there. But I have to get the money. I don’t
have a charge...so I’d have to save it...Because they need mattresses
bad. They need them now. Like, yesterday, [emphasis mine]
The scarcity of the financial resources on which these consumers rely means
that needs and wants that arise in one week or month (or, at times, year) routinely
must wait until a future infusion of funds to be addressed. In fact, particularly with the
working class poor, most, if not all, of these consumers’ income is earmarked for
144
specific purposes, mentally “spent” before it is even received. As one respondent put
it, “I pretty much know that any money I’m gonna get, I know right where it's going."
Another spoke more dramatically about how his wife’s earnings are, in fact, spent
before they are even earned. The “catching up" flavor of the Naughtons’ situation was
made clear to Gerald and Diane every time Diane received her pay. As Gerald
explained, Diane regularly takes advances on her meager earnings in order to make it
through the week.
...like during the week we'll run into, if we need twenty dollars for
something she’ll get it [from her boss]. So, a lot of the time, usually,
actually, by the time Friday gets here there’s like, she gets her pay
but we owe her boss like forty, fifty bucks out of it. So, yeah, we
start with half a loaf already.
Diane receives her pay on Fridays. I asked Gerald if there was any money left by
Thursday:
Noooooo. Noooooo.
I: How far do you get?
Monday. Monday we’re back to the same problems. Monday

we’re already borrowing from the next paycheck...We’re in a
buying time mode right now. That’s basically what we do is buy
time from one day to the next.
In sum, when these consumers get to the store they are catching up with what
are oftentimes longstanding requests. It is deferred, rather than immediate gratification
that marks their experiences as consumers. The notion that they are “present-oriented"
in the sense of impulsive or unwilling or able to think beyond the present moment is
misguided. While they are certainly focused on addressing needs and wants of the
current period, it misleading to refer to them as present-time oriented since it is so
145
often in the past —sometimes distant past— that the needs and wants of these
consumers originated. Thus, rather than referring to their time-orientation as “present,"
it would be more accurate to refer to them as having a “current" time orientation, as
this term can be used to capture both the present and the (recent) past.
In regarding consumers from working class or working class poor backgrounds
as “hedonistic" and unwilling or able to defer gratification, scholars have revealed the
dangers of employing truncated views of the realm of consumption. By considering the
thoughts and activities surrounding the acquisition of market goods, we see that what
may appear to be “impulsive” or otherwise “immediate” purchases are, in fact,
something else. While Bourdieu’s analysis includes reference to the acquisition
process, he does not actually study those practices (either mental or physical) which
lead to the acquisition of market goods. He, as with others (i.e., culture of poverty
arguments), disregards the “pre-spending” period which, as I have shown here, can be
considerable. As this analysis reveals, the “life” of these goods vis a vis the consumer
who, eventually, comes to possess them, is initiated long before the moment of
possession.
Although not explicitly referred to as such, this notion of a “pre-purchase” life
for consumer goods has been developed in studies of consumption, particularly with
regards to the role of fantasy in consumption. As Abercrombie (1994), for example,
suggests, once goods have been produced the materials from which they are made
become transformed into the materials of “fantasizing,” as consumers “lives are
organized around fantasies and daydreams about consuming” (1994:44). Perhaps
most notably, Campbell (1987), has developed an argument regarding the centrality of
daydreaming and fantasy as the hallmark of modem consumption. According to
146
Campbell, it is only in the modem era (with the advent of silent reading) that
consumers have developed the ability to fantasize about consumer goods. Campbell
maintains that such daydreaming is central to understanding why people consume
beyond that which is necessary to sustain life (rejecting, for example, Veblen’s notion
of “conspicuous consumption" and status display). He suggests that it is the pleasure
of the fantasy itself which is “addictive" to consumers and, as such, that fulfilment of
consumption desires is neither possible, nor desirable. Thus, according to Campbell,
deferring gratification simply adds to the pleasure of consumption (1987:88).
Just as it would be difficult to characterize the pre-purchasing activities I have
documented here as regarding fantasy, so too would it be a challenge to regard them
as inherently pleasurable, as Campbell suggests (although as I discuss below in
relation to parents’ sacrifices for their children, there can, of course, be pleasure in
what appears to be “pain”). Indeed, the type of “waiting period" to which I have here
referred is far less “dreamy" in character and generally, much more practical than
anything described by Campbell or, for that matter, others who depict consumption in
this manner (e.g., see Holbrook and Hirschman 1982). In this sense, these findings
offer a more grounded perspective on the pre-purchase life of consumer goods than is
currently evident in the consumption literature.
Clarity and Simplicity in the Practices of Working Class

and Working Class Poor Consumers
In this section I shift my attention to the issue of clarity in the practices of
acquisition of working class and working class poor consumers. Acquisition practices
for these consumers are in many ways straightforward affairs. As I show below, as
consumers, these individuals commonly face clear situations in terms of: (1) the
147
ramifications of making particular purchases, (2) the source from which money for
particular goods is derived, and (3) the destination of particular monies saved. Largely
resulting from the relative paucity of financial resources at these consumers’ disposal,
consumption is in many ways an unambiguous sphere of activity in which the number
of options for achieving one’s objectives are rather limited and, thus, from the
perspective of the consumer, apparent. As with the previous discussion on the issue of
time, the clarity (and, relatedly, complexity) characteristic of working class relations of
acquisition is a theme which has received considerable attention in Bourdieu's analysis
of class, as well as numerous studies on the social psychology of working class life.
This literature will be addressed below.
In many ways, Bill Yanelli fits the description of what is often presented as the
typical working class man. Having dropped out of high school by the tenth grade, Bill
has been working at various unskilled and semi-skilled blue-collar jobs since his teens.
While in high school, he worked part-time at a local grocery where he stocked shelves,
unpacked incoming deliveries, and occasionally butchered meat. From time to time,
Bill’s employer would offer him an opportunity to earn extra money by painting some of
the properties he owned throughout the neighborhood. After a while, Bill left high
school and started painting full-time, first for the grocer and then for other property
owners and small businessmen. For the past fifteen years, Bill has held a series of
jobs, mostly in residential and commercial painting, but he has also worked for
contractors where he has learned to do carpentry, plumbing and electrical work. Bill’s
tenure at these jobs has varied from short periods to seven years. Until recently, his
jobs were always off-the-books. Some provided paid holidays and a week’s paid
148
vacation a year, but most lacked anything resembling a package of benefits. At his
present job he estimates that about eighty percent of his time is spent painting and
twenty percent doing the carpentry or other work he sees as more rewarding. Bill finds
the relentless pace of painting to be boring and physically trying.
After work on Fridays, Bill generally gets home sometime between two and four
o’clock. He showers, heads to the bank to cash his check and then stops in at the beer
distributor where he buys cigarettes, a case of beer, and lottery tickets. Bill plays “the
numbers" every day and has “hit” on more than a few occasions. In the summertime,
Bill listens to the radio or watches television before picking up his eleven year-old son
Billy from day camp at around 6pm. His wife Linda usually am'ves home in the interim
and (on nights when Billy’s little league baseball team is not playing) the Yanellis
generally order take-out food for dinner and then watch television or sit out on the front
stoop and talk to neighbors. Friday night is also the time when the Yanellis organize
payment of their weekly bills with Bill and Linda contributing equally to the household’s
expenses.
During my first visit with the Yanellis, what struck me as (stereo)typically
working class about Bill was not the beer in his hand, the t-shirt on his back or the
accent with which he spoke. Nor was it anything directly related to Bill’s manual labor
job. Instead, it was the clear, matter-of-fact logic on which Bill relied in making sense
of the world. As I described to the Yanellis the general parameters of my research and
what their participation would entail, Bill stated flatly his interpretation of my study: “It’s
money. You got it, you got no problems. You don’t, you’re out of luck.” Indeed, on that
day and on numerous occasions as I got to know Bill over the next several months, I
discerned a notably uncomplicated tone in his thinking. There was little room for gray
149
area in Bill’s sense of things. On another occasion, he explained how he saw those
with education as lacking that which he possesses: “I guess I got common sense, you
know? Either you got [education] or you got common sense. Can’t have both."
Initially, Bill’s uncomplicated, to-the-point demeanor appeared unremarkable.
The literature on working class life has long noted the prevalence of straightforward
“either/or” logic of the type Bill espoused. During the 1950s and 1960s studies of the
“authoritarian personality" —identified as particularly working class— noted a limited
“breadth of perspective" or “lack of intellectual flexibility" prevalent for members of the
working classes (and linked to extreme, intolerant and, to some extent, prejudicial
views) (e.g., Adomo et al. 1950; Lipset 1960; see Gabennesch 1971 for review).
Although these studies came under widespread criticism on several fronts, the
understanding that members of the working classes tend to view things in a
straightforward “on its face" manner has lingered in the literature.8
Kohn (1977), for example, has linked “intellectual flexibility” to the conditions of
work, particularly the “substantive complexity” of the job. Sociolinguist Basil Bernstein
(1975, 1977) argues that speech variants —under which working class speakers
employ a “restricted” code, of which Bill Yanelli’s “either/or" logic could certainly be
seen as an example— are rooted in class-based socialization patterns.9 In particular,
8 Much of the criticism levelled at Lipset, for example, regarded the quality of his data. Miller and
Riessman (1961) faulted Lipset for ignoring important aspects of his data (e.g., the prevalence
of “don’t know” responses) and using biased survey instruments. Perhaps more scathingly,
Lipset (as well as Adomo and his colleagues) was criticized for making unsubstantiated
conclusions regarding class-based personality traits. Subsequent researchers in the area of
class-linked behavior took pains to differentiate between the conditions under which people live
and more ingrained issues of personality (e.g., Kohn 1977: xliii).
9 In his research with school children, Bernstein demonstrated class differences in what he
referred to as speech “codes.” According to Bernstein, working class children employ “restricted
codes” in which the speaker’s meanings are implicit and assumed to be understood by the
listener. By contrast, elaborated codes, employed (selectively) by middle class children, are
150
Bernstein cites the emphasis on shared group experience in working class cultures
and the focus on the individual (“I” rather than “we”) in middle class life as responsible
for class-based perspectives and speech patterns.
Bourdieu’s work reflects an element of this, as well. Indeed, throughout
Distinction, Bourdieu repeatedly refers to the working class tendency to view things in
straightforward, pragmatic and functional terms. He argues that the working classes
exhibit a “popular realism” which, as he puts it, “inclines working people to reduce
practices to the reality of their function, to do what they do and be what they are
(That's the way I am’), without ‘kidding themselves’ (That’s the way it is’)" (1984:200).
As with Bernstein, Bourdieu refers to the uniquely isolated nature of working class
community-based socialization as (in his case, partly) responsible for creating such a
tendency among the working class. He suggests that “the extraordinary realism of the
working classes, stems from the closure effect of the homogeneity of the directly
experienced social world" (1984:381). At the same time, however, Bourdieu refers
again to the “conditions of life” linked to the material constraints of class as essential to
the development of what he calls the “pragmatic” or “functional” approach employed by
the working classes. This tendency toward pragmatism (rooted in the material
constraints of class) is evident in working class consumption of such things as art, food
and clothing. With respect to art, the working classes tend to focus on the practical,
invoking straightforward interpretations of what they see. This contrasts, as Bourdieu
shows, with middle class sensibilities that focus on form, symbolism and abstraction
rather than function (e.g., 1984:44-47).
more explicit. The experience of the speaker is seen as unique and thus, clarification is required
in order for the speaker to be understood.
151
In short, then, researchers have suggested a variety of sources as contributing
to a clarity of perspective among the working class (e.g., conditions of work,
socialization, class-linked material conditions). My research on the practices of
obtaining goods suggests that those practices in particular —linked, as Bourdieu
suggests, to “material conditions of a class condition” —provide a further, specified
way of explaining the character of working class views.10 One particular remark of Bill
Yanelli’s pointed me in this direction. When speaking about the events surrounding the
purchase of the Yanellis’ first home, I asked Bill how he and Linda raised the
downpayment. Bill told me that he sold his motorcycle for the five thousand dollars
they needed. When I asked if they had considered any other options he looked at me
blankly.
No. That was the only way to get the money. There wasn’t nothing else
about it. No, that was it. I knew that all along. It was like, one day [the
motorcycle’s] gonna go and it’s gonna go for a house, if I do sell it...
[Linda] knew I’d sell it for a house in a minute, and I did.
Bill, of course, was right. There, in fact, was no other way for the Yanellis to get
the five thousand dollar downpayment. They needed the money quickly. A bank loan
was not an option because Bill and Linda were both working off-the-books and did not
have so much as a bank account between them. Neither had family who could provide
that kind of funding and with the other monthly costs associated with the house (e.g.,
taxes, insurance) it is unclear that they would have been able to handle a separate
10 It should be noted that my research cannot (and should not) be seen as evidence that the
working class have “restricted views.” All I am able to show is that if and to the extent that such
views are prevalent generally, among the working class, practices of acquisition provide a
plausible explanation and are a potential contributing factor.
152
loan at the same time.11 The house needed immediate repair work and the Yanellis
relied almost exclusively on their credit cards to pay for the necessary materials.12
Viewed in this light, Bill’s brief, matter-of-fact comment about selling his
motorcycle for the downpayment can certainly be seen as resulting not necessarily
from his (generalized) community socialization (Bernstein 1977) or work conditions
(Kohn 1977), but as a reflection of the conditions of his life as a consumer. The matter
was, in fact, a simple one; if Bill did not sell his bike the Yanellis would not be able to
raise the downpayment needed to buy the house. Indeed, in this instance and, as I
show below, many others, the options for working class and working class poor
consumers are, in fact, clear and few. As a result, acting as a consumer provides them
with experiences in which high degrees of clarity and little room for movement are the
norm. In short, the limited financial resources upon which these consumers rely
truncates the timeframe within which they operate and, in doing so, makes apparent
both their limited options as consumers as well as the ramifications of their actions
under that guise. For these individuals, acquisition is in many ways a straightforward,
limited-option affair.
The nature of these consumers’ financial situations is central to the
straightforward character of the “thinking work” they do as consumers. As previously
discussed, though there were important variations both across and within these
categories, working class and working class poor consumers in the study faced
11 It may have been possible for one of Linda’s brothers to assist them with a loan, but this is not
clear. Linda’s brother had himself Just purchased a piece of property and his ability to extend
such an offer at that time is unknown.
12 The Yanellis purchased their home under somewhat unusual circumstances. A recently
widowed neighbor approached them and suggested that they buy her house. Working through a
153
commodity markets highly dependent upon cash-on-hand to make purchases. This,
coupled with the fact that their budgets were tight meant that the amount of money
available each week or month for spending was apparent. The fact that these
consumers relied on current (“on hand”) income for much (in some cases, all) of their
purchasing meant that there was generally a clear and finite amount that they could
spend during a given interval; the limited nature of their resources clarified their
situation.
In addition to the clarity offered by reliance on cash, further clarity was
encouraged by the fact that the cash on which these consumers rely is generally right
at their fingertips. Importantly, this cash generally had a physical presence in these
consumers’ lives. For some, their physical relationship with money was important. Ray
Gaskel, for example, enjoys cashing his check and physically counting his earnings.
Ray, who the reader will recall virtually always goes to work on “pay Fridays," has
thought about using the direct deposit system offered by his employer. He knows it
would be more convenient, but he likes the physicality of counting his money:
Well, sometimes I think it would be easier [to use the direct deposit]
'cause a lot of times I might be taking the day off on a Friday and if
it’s a pay Friday, ‘cause we get paid every two weeks, so I have to
go to work to get my checks. So for that convenience [I’d like to do
it]. But then again, I like counting my money too. You know,
‘chchchc’ [gestures counting out bills] ‘Hey I got something here!’
[Ray smiles excitedly]. You know, not just going to the [automatic
teller] and taking out a couple of hundred.
Ray does use a bank account for both saving money and as a place to hold current
“spending money.” Others, particularly working class poor consumers, did not even
realtor, they were then able to set up a private mortgage, financed by the owner. No
documentation was required to organize the loan.
154
hold bank accounts. As Stephanie Greeley explained: “I don’t have a checking
account. I don’t ever keep money in there long enough.” Most working class families in
the study (six out of seven) did have at least one account, but only half of those used
their accounts as a regular holding facility for money. The others used the accounts
simply for the purposes of writing checks for bills, keeping any remaining cash at
home. Like the working class poor, these consumers viewed keeping money in the
bank as a largely futile exercise. Since they routinely spend most or all of the money
they earn by the end of the pay period, these consumers see little point in keeping
their money in the bank. Linda Yanelli (who does not have an account) struck a chord
similar to Stephanie Greeley as she explained why she shuns the bank:
We don’t save nothin’ in the bank. We don’t have it to put in, so why
get something started that.. [Voice trails off. Linda gestures a
resigned but regretful shrug].
In effect, then, their practices keep them in close, physical contact with cash available
for spending and they are able to pinpoint any money they have for obtaining goods
(or for other purposes) at any given moment. One respondent, for example, told me
that she keeps all of her money “in my pocketbook,” making her spending power at a
given time apparent; if it is not in her pocketbook, she does not have it. Another who
two years ago at the age of twenty-five opened his first account explained that
previously, “I just used to lock it up in the house. If I needed money I just went for it."13
In addition to the presence of cash money in these consumers’ lives the
straightforward nature of their situations was also enhanced by the absence of varied
13 Before opening their joint account, Artie and his wife Debbie had a great deal of difficulty
gaining approval on credit card applications. They were told that opening a bank account would
be helpful in this regard. This was part of the reason Artie finally opened an account.
155
investment or other money-holding venues. Lacking much, if anything in the way of
secondary accounts, stocks, mutual funds, second homes, IRAs, pension schemes,
and the like, the breadth of these consumers’ financial resources is extremely narrow
(see Chapter Two). Indeed, compiling financial profiles for these respondents during
interviews was generally a simple task as they 'could easily account for all assets.
Though the situation for a few consumers in these categories was, indeed, more
complex, in general, the financial circumstances of both the working class and working
class poor respondents were notably straightforward.
Bill Yanelli’s clear and uncomplicated manner of speaking was not unique to
him. Indeed, although generally more subtle than the comments made by Bill, there
was a unmistakable sense of clarity running through the interviews and fieldwork
conducted with both working class and working class poor consumers generally. This
became manifest in a number of ways. In the following discussion, I highlight three
types of clear relationships integral to the thinking of acquisition for working class and
working class poor consumers: (1) zero-sum relationships, (2) clarity of source, and (3)
clarity of objective. As I show in Chapter Six, such unambiguous relationships were
decidedly absent from the experiences of upper-middle class respondents.
Zero-sum Relationships
Perhaps the most striking example of the clarity that characterized working
class and working class poor acquisition activity was the immediacy of the connections
these consumers identified between particular (acquisition) actions and their
consequences. For Bill and Linda Yanelli, buying a house meant selling Bill’s
motorcycle. Zero-sum calculations of this type, whereby doing X has clear and
156
apparent ramifications for Y were common in interviews and fieldwork with these
families. Such calculations took several forms.
For example, during an unusually hot summer, Debbie Fallon considered
foregoing a family vacation in order to purchase an air conditioner. Debbie and
husband Artie had saved the $450 they needed to rent a van for the week, but Debbie
was tempted to abandon the vacation plans and put the money to different use:
We almost cancelled our vacation two weeks ago, it was so hot. It was
ungodly and I said That’s it! I can’t take it no more! Cancel our
vacation!’ because we rented a car ‘Cancel our car. We’re going out
and buying an air conditioner and that’s it!’
In the end, the Fallons did not cancel their trip. They made do with fans and cool drinks
and spent their vacation week visiting Artie’s sister and her family, as planned.
Nevertheless, Debbie’s remarks indicate that purchasing an air conditioner was seen
as having clear consequences for other consumption considerations. In entertaining
the thought of buying the air conditioner, it was apparent to Debbie that something else
would have to give; having an air conditioner would mean not having a vacation.
Another example of clear, zero-sum relationships in the lives of these
consumers was provided by Bill Yanelli’s wife, Linda. In explaining the purchase of the
Yanellis’ living room furniture, Linda told me about the spontaneous decision that
resulted in that purchase. A few weeks prior to making the purchase, Linda and Bill
had been in a furniture shop in a nearby neighborhood. Linda spotted three small
tables for $79 that she was interested in buying. For a few weeks she saved money in
order to go back and buy the tables. When the Yanellis arrived at the store, however,
they had a change of plans:
157
It was a Friday night and we both just got paid. We have no money in
the bank, we live week-to-week. So we go down to get the tables, and
I’m all excited, and we walk in and that living room set [pointing to her
sofa and reclinet] was on sale for like $500, and we just looked at each
other, and Bill goes: ‘I’m getting it!’ And I said: ‘You won’t have a dime
left! How are we gonna eat this week?’ He says: ‘I don't know, and !
don’t care, but I’m getting it.’ We went for the tables, but we bought the
living room set, and I had to go back the next week to get the tables. So
we did without. Yeah, we did without all week. And it was worth it!
I: What do you mean when you say you did without?
I mean, we didn’t —if we wanted slush ice14 we couldn’t go out and buy
slush ice. We had to say: ‘No. There's no money.’ I mean, we had food
in the refrigerator, but we couldn’t go fill our tanks up. We had to ride on
fumes (laughter).
I: And how much was the living room set?
I think it was five [hundred] something for the sofa and the chair. It was
his whole pay. And that was on a Friday night. But we had this raggedy
old set that we got at the Salvy15 for $100 just to move in with and we
were so sick of that. So when we saw that and we had the money right
there and then, we got it.
In this instance, the Yanellis took advantage of what they considered to be a good
price on a desirable piece of furniture. The fact that they came upon the living room set
on a Friday night when both Linda and Bill had just received their pay made it possible
for them to act on their interest in purchasing the set. Doing so, however, was instantly
recognized by both Linda and Bill as having real, immediate ramifications for their day-
to-day life during that same week. The expense was not met with funds from some
general, free-flowing pool of money, but rather, with the cash on which they would
normally have relied to get through the week. This did not mean that the Yanellis went
hungry. Linda is quite fastidious about keeping their refrigerator and freezer packed at
14 “Slush ices" (pseudonym) is a local variant of flavored ice served in a soft (i.e. “squooshable")
paper cup
158
all times and the Yanellis could certainly manage for one week on these reserves. It
did, however, have an apparent impact on their lives in that virtually all spending was
eliminated until the following week’s paychecks were received. Thus, the ramifications
for purchasing the sofa were clear. In the words of Linda Yanelli, buying the living
room set meant “doing without." The experience involved clear and apparent
calculation.
A final example of the zero-sum calculations evident in the experiences of
working class and working class poor consumers regards purchases made for one
family member at the expense of other family members. In virtually all cases, this took
the form of parents, particularly, although by no means exclusively, mothers foregoing
purchases for themselves in order to buy things for their children. We saw an example
of this in Chapter Three as Sandy Robertson described the internal debates she
recently waged while considering the purchase of a discounted pair of sneakers.
Despite the fact that the sneakers were only $6.75 “on clearance,” Sandy felt guilty for
spending the money on herself when she could have used it to buy something for her
children (“I still felt that five dollars or that six dollars I could have bought two packs of
diapers or bought the kids socks and, or a sweatshirt for them or something like that").
Sandy’s husband, Mike, echoed her sentiments:
I don’t really look out for me. If I want something, I just don’t get it, you
know. I’d rather get it for Sandy or the kids.
As with Sandy, some parents could identify specific types of items that they
needed for themselves but were doing without. For Terri Stevens (working ciass,
15 Salvation Army thrift store.
159
divorced mother of two), the notion of buying for one’s children rather than oneself is
normative. She saw little choice in the matter:
For myself, I never buy myself anything. I can’t tell you the last time. I
mean, I need —I have sweaters but I need like jeans and stuff, winter
clothes. But [voice trails off\
I: But you don’t do that.
Well, you know, the kids have to come —I mean, you know, I have to
get them, they come first. I mean, you just, [shaking her head] there’s
no getting around it. You just have to make sure they have everything.
Notions of appropriate practices for parents relative to children were strong. For many
parents, purchasing things for themselves or their spouse was restricted to holidays on
which it is customary for adults to receive gifts. Thus, for example, in the Fallon family,
while purchases for the children are made cyclically, Debbie and Artie generally restrict
clothes purchasing for each other to special occasions where gift-giving is expected,
even for adults:
We don’t, I don’t buy a lot. If I need it, I’ll buy it. Like, maybe two pairs of
jeans a year. I don’t buy for me and Artie like for the kids unless- for his
birthday I’ll go out and buy him clothes. I try to, anyway and like, for like
Father's Day and Christmas. That’s the only time we buy clothes for
each other or we get new clothes. But we don’t do like we do for the
kids...l just feel like they need it more than us.
In the Conti household, even on holidays and other special occasions Mary (working
class poor, divorced, mother of three) rarely buys for herself. Mary's eldest daughter,
Lori is sixteen. The younger two are ten and four.
I: And you were saying about clothing, that’s something you’d like to
have more of or different things?
160
Well, just for my kids, more or less. If I go out shopping for me I come
home with things for my kids. It’s always the way. My mother always
used to yell at me. Lori would say ‘What’d you get for yourself?’ ‘A bra’
Okay? [giggle] And Melissa would have three outfits, Denise would have
three outfits, you know and ‘All right, now we’re gonna go get you guys
sneakers!’ [Mary imitates tone of excitement Lori goes, ‘When are you
gonna buy yourself something?’ So, one day my mother and I went out
and she did not let me go into anything that had any kids clothing
[giggle]-
I: How does that happen that you don’t buy for yourself?
Because my kids are my life. They’re more important. I can live with
what I have. People aren’t gonna make fun at my clothes. Children, kids
hurt each other with their mouths, with things they say and I don’t want
my kids to have to deal with what I went through when I was a kid.
Mary’s interest in protecting her children is admirable. She knows all too well what it is
like to be made fun of for having clothes that are out of style or have an improper fit. It
is understandable that she wants to protect her children from the taunts of others,
taunts she herself experienced as a youth. What Mary does not think to say in
answering my question, however, is what is obvious to her. She cannot afford to buy
clothes for both herself and her kids; something has to give.
It is probably true that most parents buy more clothing for their children than for
themselves.16 Children grow out of things and generally damage clothing in ways that
10 In terms of expenditure per child, on average, adults spend more on their own wardrobes per
year than they spend on those of their individual children (Brown 1994:382-91). However, these
figures refer to amount spent per child/adult by sex. This means that in households where more
than one child of the same sex is present, the total spending on children would exceed that
spent on the parent. Moreover, the ratio of parent to child spending varies by class. For
example, in 1988 poor mothers spent only one-seventh more on their own clothes than their
daughters, while middle class mothers spent two-thirds more on their own clothes. It is unclear
whether these figures include money spent by the children themselves. In the present study, the
contributions of working class and poor children to their own clothing and other expenses
appeared to be considerable. Younger teens (twelve to fifteen) often made contributions to
particular purchases (e.g., name brand sneakers). In each working class and working class poor
household with older teens, parents reported that these children pay for virtually all of their own
clothing.
161
adults simply do not. In this sense, the fact that these parents spend more on their
children’s wardrobes than their own is not, in and of itself, particularly striking. What is
unique about the experiences of these consumers relative to those of the upper-middle
class consumers in the study is the way in which purchases for oneself are seen as
taking something away from one’s child. Debbie Fallon did not simply say that she and
Artie do not need much in the way of clothing, but rather, went beyond that to say that
the children “need it more than us" [emphasis mine]. In doing so, Debbie pointed to the
clear, interrelated nature of the relationship between spending for oneself and
spending for one’s children for these consumers. More than unnecessary or possibly
indulgent in some broad sense of the terms, in these households, buying for oneself
has clear ramifications for other members of the family, especially children.
Conversely, spending too much on children can leave parents in particularly destitute
straits. As Diane Naughton (working class poor) remarked about what she sees as her
husband’s overspending when his children come to visit, “we gotta think about [the
fact] that when they leave, it leaves us with nothing.”
Not everything about this tight interrelationship is negative. Indeed, parents’
feelings about making these (and other) kinds of everyday sacrifices for their children
were complex (Parker 1996). Both Frank Warner and Gerald Naughton, the two non
custodial fathers in the study, spoke about feeling isolated from their children and
wanting to compensate for that in some measure during visits.17 Mary Conti spoke with
an unmistakable tone of pride, even martyrdom, when talking about the things she
does for her children at her own expense. Another mother was explicit about her
17 On the issues of divorce and parental guilt and overspending, see Wallerstein and Kelly
1980).
162
feelings, indicating that she feels “real good” about the fact that, in contrast to her own
mother, she is “focused more on my kids than on myself."
Nevertheless, with resources scarce, working class and working class poor
consumers are put in pointed competition with their children. Spending on themselves
means not spending on their children and the scarcer the resources, the clearer the
interrelationship becomes. Frank Warner’s (working class poor, divorced, father of
one) experience is unmistakable:
[On weekends] when my boy comes out, I can easily go through a

hundred bucks over the weekend. I would rather spend it on him, but
sometimes I even get a little too loose with that. Instead of saving it up
for myself for the end of the week, I say, ‘Well, let me get you this, let
me get you that’ you know, ‘Let’s go here. Let’s go there.’ A lot of
times on Sunday night I’m sitting home and it’s like, [I say to myself],
‘Well, you ought to buy this...’ But I’m broke. And he still thinks Dad’s
cool, you know.
Whether the competition is between items intended for general family use (e.g., an air
conditioner vs. a vacation) or between purchases earmarked for specific household
members, the interrelated nature of the relationship between these acquisitions was
clear as purchases crowd each other out. Scarcity brings into high relief the intra
household competitions surrounding consumption in these families.
Clarity of Objective
Though most working class and working class poor respondents reported great
difficulties in saving money, when these consumers did put money aside it was virtually
always with a specific goal in mind. Saving money was an experience in which the
destination of the funds set aside was clear. The notion of saving for an indeterminate
“rainy day” was not a practice employed by these respondents. As a result, when
163
saving toward a particular purchase, these consumers would generally note an
estimated price on the desired item and then, over the course of several weeks or
months, put aside money toward that good. Returning to the earlier example of Janet
DeStefano (working class poor) and the mattresses she was planning to buy for her
daughters, Janet explains how she would go about amassing the funds necessary to
make the purchase.
I figured what I would do is I'll give, I’ll just call the store and find out
approximately how much each one would cost and then save it.
I: So how do you— people do this differently, some maybe squirrel

money away, put a little like in an envelope or they might open a bank
account for it or, how do you think...
No. I would put it away [at home]. Like, take a little bit each time and put
it away. Well, if I had something in mind that I want to get I would
probably take a lot and put it away. You know what I mean? Knowing
that I was gonna get it.
In another family, Linda Yanelli (working class) was getting ready to set some funds
aside. She told me about the window treatments she wanted to get for their one-
window living room.18
Right now, my thing is I want the blinds, the vertical blinds. So,
that’s my next spend.
I: And how much is that? Do you know?
[Bill] said $200 because we got a big window, but I have no idea.
He could be wrong.
18 Linda’s comments were made during a general discussion about how "having money” makes
shopping more enjoyable for her; “If for some reason, I’ll have a good week, or make a little
extra money, or Billy will do a side job, something like that, and it makes it more fun, when I can
go out and really spend. When I find something for me, I really gotta find something else. Right
now, my thing is, I want the blinds...”
164
Linda knew of a few paint and decorative stores that she thought would have the blinds
and where she could price them more precisely. She intended to begin putting money
away toward the blinds.
Now I’ll start saving. I’ll put $10 away, $15 each week, or whatever I
can, $5, into a little envelope and I’ll just keep it somewhere and when it
accumulates and I get close, I’ll get them.
The experience of preparing for such purchases is one of clarity in which the
relationship between money saved and its intended purpose is evident. While some
consumers were more apt to save for purchases in this way than others (as one
woman who shuns this practice put it “it just never works out for me," virtually all
working class and, to a lesser extent, working class poor respondents employed this
practice in some measure.
Another way working class and working class poor consumers save money
toward particular purchases is by using layaway plans. Particularly popular for
Christmas purchases, virtually all families in these class categories used layaway at
some time. These plans usually involve leaving a deposit of at least ten percent on
selected merchandise and then returning to the store to make several (usually three or
four) payments. Thus, it allows the consumer to stagger the cash outlays. There are
not additional costs associated with layaway (unless the customer never goes to
retrieve the goods and, fails to return to the store for his/her deposit money). From a
retailer’s perspective, layaway has traditionally been viewed as advantageous. When
customers place items on layaway, retailers hold onto the customer’s money (and can
invest it) while the customer is brought back into the store again and again, creating
the opportunity for further purchasing. Nevertheless, layaway plans have been
165
discontinued at many stores, as credit cards have increased in popularity (Baldwin
1998). With credit cards the norm, retailers have shifted away from offering layaway
plans.
Again, particularly when access to credit is a problem, layaway allows
consumers to secure goods before seasonal stocks are depleted or sale items have
been exhausted. Some spoke appreciatively about stores that continued to offer
layaway services, despite the shift toward credit card use. Eileen Caldwell, for
example, enjoys using Bradlees’ layaway plan and remarked with sadness about their
plans to discontinue it.19 Eillen has a poor credit history and although she had credit
cards in the past, is unable to access the cards today. Layaway provides her with a
way of securing her selections prior to saving up enough cash to pay for them. In this
way, Eileen is able to make her selections before the sizes or styles she desires have
been sold out. As another respondent, Mary Conti (working class poor) informed me,
using layaway does not prevent consumers from taking advantage of discounts later
applied to the set aside purchases. The discount can be applied upon final collection of
the goods (providing the customer knows about it and requests it).
Perhaps even more starkly than keeping an envelope in the house, layaway
creates a clear connection between the money set aside and the precise goods it
secures. Customers hand over a certain amount of money to secure a certain
purchase (or set of purchases). As such, a clear and apparent relationship between
the money spent and the goods it secures is forged.
Finally, it is also worth noting that even saving toward large, non-tangible
“goods” such as automobile insurance, home heating oil or children's tuition was also
166
frequently handled in a concrete fashion in these households. Many respondents kept
the money for such bills in specially designated spot in their homes. One respondent
who used to keep money in the house for major household bills did eventually give in
to her husband’s plea to use a bank account. Nevertheless, she still insists on cashing
her husband’s paychecks and physically separating the money into specially
designated envelopes before documenting, on a ledger sheet, precisely how much has
been accumulated toward each bill. Then and only then does she “feel comfortable”
depositing the lump sum unto the account. In this way, the clear, concrete manner with
which money is handled extends to less object-oriented savings, as well.
In recent years, much has been made of the declining savings rates in the U.S.
(see Schor 1998). This tendency is often keyed to negative attributes on the part of
potential savers, such as lack of discipline and unwillingness to defer gratification.
Indeed, as noted above, such charges have long been levelled at members of the
working classes (Lewis 1969; Schneider and Lysgaard 1953).
But the present study suggests that these consumers do save money. Their
savings, however, tend to be geared toward specific consumer items and expenses.
As a result, these efforts are not generally considered to constitute “savings,” even
amongst those who dutifully place the $10 or $5 into a special envelope each week.
Indeed, when asked about saving, even those like Linda Yanelli and Janet DeStefano
who either regularly or from time to time put money aside for upcoming expenditures
reported that they “never” save money. In implicit recognition of its clear destination,
cash reserved for a specified goal is somehow not counted as saving.20 However,
while such consumption-oriented cash set asides may not constitute savings in the
20 For further discussion on how the meaning of monies is socially variable, see Zelizer (1994).
167
traditional use of the term (i.e., long term provision of economic security) engaging in
such practices means that these consumers can and do delay gratification while other,
more advantaged consumers are able to circumvent such practices.
Clarity of Source
A final example of the clarity that characterizes important aspects of working
class and working class poor consumer experience has to do with the origins of the
money used in purchasing. Particularly for larger purchases made by these
respondents, the source of the funds was often clear to the consumer. During our
shopping trip for the basement door (see above discussion), Bill Yanelli identified three
separate sources as providing the funds for his purchase, including; money won in a
football betting pool; Linda’s lottery windfall from the previous week and; money from
the new, better paying job Bill had just started.
In some instances, respondents would work at a particular “side job” in order to
earn the money to buy a high priced item such as audio equipment, a car, or home
improvement materials. Before his injury, Gerald Naughton (working class poor,
divorced father of two) frequently did side jobs to earn money for items like stereo
speakers, living room furniture and Christmas presents. At thirty-three, Gerald has
never been able to access commercial credit, even when he has had steady work. He
rejects the practice of squirreling away cash for particular items, citing temperamental
conflict:
I’m not the type to put like twenty dollars a week away until I get enough
to buy [something]. I’m the type that if I want to get it and really need it
and it costs four hundred dollars or five hundred dollars, I’ll go out and
try to get side jobs and I’ll like hustle the five hundred dollars so I can
buy it. Hustle the money right up and buy the object. [My wife and I]
never really long-term save for anything.
168
For those struggling to put food on the table, side jobs were sometimes directed
toward smaller expenses. Frank Warner (working class poor, divorced father of one)
spoke about his strategy for raising the money necessary to pay for a month’s
installment on his son’s encyclopedia:
I know when [the bill’s] coming. It comes in the middle of the month. So,
that’s coming up right, in fact, it’s coming up this week. But I'll make
plans, like during the week I’ll see somebody in the bar [downstairs from
where I live], ‘Hey man, I’ll do your car. I’ll detail it for $35.1can have it
done in an hour and a half You can always find somebody. So by
Wednesday or Thursday I’ll put $35 in the [mail].
At other times, Frank’s needs were more immediate. He sometimes rakes leaves or
washes cars to earn money for the day’s meal. Frank often thinks about selling his car
in order to raise money for bills and current expenses.
Such intermittent work was not always sought out with a specific good in mind.
In some households, regular side jobs or part-time work were undertaken as a way of
earning some “play money” or funds for “extra little things.” Ray Gaskel (working class,
married father of three), for example, intermittently worked a part-time job making
deliveries in order to earn some personal spending money.
...I might stick a little money on the side say, for like, you know, you
want to go out to dinner or get something or where, where like the
house ends, in other words, my money. You know, if you want to do
something you might do a little side job just to get some money to
save a little on the side.
169
For Ray, money earned at a part-time, side job was his to spend at his discretion,
whereas money earned from his full-time position went to the household.21
For these consumers then, it is not uncommon for there to be an explicit
relationship between the origins (i.e., where and how it is earned) and destinations
(i.e., on what it is spent) of monies. Though working particular jobs was not the only
way in which the source of money for consumer goods or services was clear, this was
the most common form cited by respondents. Money won in games of chance, gifts
from parents or grandparents, tax refunds, and garage sale earnings also provided
money for specific purposes. In such instances, consumers maintain a clear
association between the source of funding and its destination. These activities are
characterized by clear and straightforward thought and action processes.
Summary and Discussion
Proponents of the “death of class" thesis argue that class matters little in the
sphere of consumption (Clark and Lipset 1991; Pakulski and Waters 1996). They note
the difficulty of seeing class at the sights of consumption (e.g., shopping malls), citing
the ubiquity of certain consumer goods and the consumption displays of shoppers. But
as I have shown here, taking a broader view of the consumption worlds of working
class and working class poor consumers reveals the ways in which those worlds take
on a particular character. In the practices of acquisition, members of the working
classes see and experience the world in ways that are linked to their class position.
These consumers experience time in small intervals. They are practiced in the art of
21 For a broader discussion of household money management, particularly as it relates to the

relative contributions made by spouses toward household expenses, see Pahl (1989), Blumberg
(1991). These studies show that women are less likely to hold earnings aside for themselves
than men, regardless of the conditions under which it is earned.
170
focusing on concerns of an immediate and, relatedly, concrete nature. In confronting
the task of accomplishing acquisition, they face a world in which the relationships
between action and result is unmistakable. The class-linked financial resources with
which these consumers approach commodity markets play a central role in shaping
the character of these relationships.
This notion of working class worlds as concrete and present-oriented is not
new. The present study, however, offers a way of seeing how, precisely, the activities
in which individuals engage as consumers may contribute to these more generalized
orientations. In addition, this analysis offers a modification of existing conceptions of
the working class as unwilling or able to defer gratification. As I have demonstrated
here, a more complex relationship —whereby the “want" is often initiated long before it
is satisfied— is at play.
In his development of the concept of habitus, Pierre Bourdieu suggests that it is
the subtle, largely unnoticed aspects of “who we are" that are the most powerful
aspects of class distinction. Bourdieu has artfully demonstrated the ways in which the
taste for goods and the manner in which we use goods orient consumers in distinct
manners by virtue of class position. Both the tempo of life as well as the concrete (or
vague) nature of life experience are, according to Bourdieu, linked to the relationship
between class and the ways in which consumption is enacted and experienced. In this
chapter, I have shown how, in addition to the mode of consumption, the mode of
acquisition too provides a means by which class based characteristics of the habitus
are formed. The unique character of working class and working class poor experience
in this regard will become more apparent in the remaining chapters of this thesis, as
the experiences of upper-middle class respondents are brought to light.
171
CHAPTER 5
ACQUISITION PRACTICES OF THE UPPER-MIDDLE CLASS
In this and the following chapter I turn my attention to the practices of upper-
middle class consumers. According to the “death of class" thesis, the experiences of
upper-middle class consumers in obtaining goods and services should vary little from
those of the working class and working class poor. As outlined in Chapter One,
proponents of this thesis argue that consumption is essentially a “classless” arena.
However, as I show below, my findings indicate that the experiences of upper-middle
class consumers vary in important ways from those of the working class and working
class poor. I begin by demonstrating the casual tone to acquisition prevalent in upper-
middle class households. Following this, I highlight the centrality of “choice” in the
experiences of these individuals as consumers. In each case, the experiences of
upper-middle class consumers are shown to differ markedly from those of the working
class and working class poor.
A Casual Approach: The Non-Issue of Acquisition

in Upper-middle Class Households
In many ways the most striking aspect of my discussions with upper-middle
class consumers was the casual approach to goods' acquisition taken by these
respondents. In sharp contrast to the experiences in working class and working class
poor families, acquisition in upper-middle class households was treated as an
unremarkable event, generally warranting little pointed thought or calculation. Largely
free from the pressing financial concerns so central to the practices of the working
172
class and working class poor, the “place" of acquisition in these households was
markedly muted.
This pattern was clearly evident in the Mandel household. Lori and Steve
Mandel reside in a newly constructed five-bedroom home in a quiet part of Sylvan
Township, less than three miles down Clearwater Pike from Artie and Debbie Fallon.
Lori and Steve both grew up in the area and their parents and siblings live nearby.
Both Lori and Steve consider their lifestyle to be a comfortable one. From Steve’s
perspective, their house is “perfect," new and spacious enough for extended family
gatherings and children’s play. Lori too is pleased with their home and the style in
which they have decorated it. She is particularly fond of the contemporary-style art
works she and Steve have purchased at charity events and smaller craft items she
occasionally picks up in the gentrified retail section of Richmond. Still, Lori has regrets
about the house. With only a quarter of an acre of property, Lori feels that her
neighbors are too close for comfort. In addition, though the Mandels have lived in this
house for almost five years, both the formal dining room and sitting room remain
largely unfurnished. Indecisiveness over how to decorate and a [shortage of time] have
prevented Lori and Steve from completing the task.
The Mandels have three children, Kimberly (eight years old), Sean (six years
old) and one year-old Todd. During our first interview, Lori laughed as she told me
about the “seven years of college" she undertook —four as a history and biology major
at an Ivy League university, followed by three years at a state university where she
earned an additional bachelor’s degree in speech therapy— “just to stay at home.” Lori
has stayed home with her children full-time for the past seven years. Prior to that she
worked part-time as an speech therapist.
173
Steve’s degree from a state university is in optometry. After several years of
work in various retail chains, Steve joined the ranks of the self-employed. With the help
of a loan from Lori’s grandfather, the Mandels purchased a retail optical store that
Steve runs. Though she does not draw a salary, Lori also does work for the family
business —now including another store, purchased one year ago— ordering
merchandise, doing bookkeeping and arranging for store advertisements. The
Mandels have an annual salary of about $120,000.
Shopping is not a regular leisure activity in the Mandel family. Lori, who is
chiefly responsible for most purchasing in the household, generally treats shopping as
something to be accomplished as quickly as possible. With Steve working sixty to
eighty hours a week, she handles virtually all of the work associated with acquisition
for the family. This includes even personal items for Steve, like new shirts and
trousers. Although Steve prefers to shop for his clothes himself and try things on in the
store, “ninety percent of the time" Lori buys a wide selection of items for him to try on
at home and then returns the things he either does not like or which do not fit. Lori
acknowledges that this system is time-costly for her but with Steve’s tight schedule
they prefer to handle these purchases this way rather than devote the little “family
time” they have to such shopping.
For Lori and Steve it is time, rather than money which is in short supply. Even
Lori who does not work outside the home feels that she has little to spare in this
regard. Caring for her children, managing the house, and sporadic volunteer work with
a women’s community organization, as well as the unpaid work she does for the family
business, keep Lori moving at a breakneck pace. She finds it difficult to ever have time
for browsing through stores or hunting for bargains. Only recently has she bought out
174
of some of her family care responsibilities by hiring a babysitter for Todd two mornings
a week and having a housecleaner in once a week. Lori had long been reluctant to
secure these services, feeling as if, as a “stay-at-home-mom," it was her work to do.
Today, convenience is the biggest factor in most of the shopping Lori does.
She explained her approach to acquisition this way:
I: How would you describe yourself in terms of your purchasing habits?

What kind of a shopper or “buyer of things" are you?
I’m kind of a bulk shopper. I don’t shop all the time. I don’t have the time
and I really don’t care to shop, so when I need something I get it.
I: So, you’re not one to browse in the malls.
Well, I used to, you know. The way my life has been since I’ve had kids,
for the past eight years I haven't...! mean, I never was a shopper, but I
was more, you know, I used to be more of a discount shopper. Now, I’m
more convenience. ‘Where can I get it fast?’ Get it. I can’t worry about
it. I just get it...It’s very hard [with the baby]. I mean, I enjoy food
shopping now because anything to get out of the house [laughtefi, but I
mean, I don’t, like, you know, some people like to go jewellery shopping
or clothes shopping. No. I don’t. It’s not important to me. I mean, I
guess it could be but it’s just, I can’t fit it into my life.
To save time, Lori routinely does what she refers to as “bulk shopping.” She goes to
the butcher shop and spends five hundred dollars on meat which she then stores in
her basement freezer. In addition, with less frequently purchased items such as
clothing, linens, or home furnishings Lori’s tendency is to buy in large quantities,
particularly when she “happens" upon a sale. At such times, Lori has arrived at the
store in search of something else.
With shopping for clothes and things like that, like if the kids need stuff,
you know, wherever I am I’ll pick something up or I’ll go somewhere and
I know they have a good sale in this nice store and I get Kimberly twenty
pairs of, you know, pants and shirts cause they’re ten dollars each and
they’re normally forty. You know, so I kind of bulk shop that way too, but
175
sporadically. Whenever I go to Marshall’s or I go here or I go there and I

find something.
I: So, where do you go, say for the kids?
Whatever’s close. I used to always do House of Bargains when [the

kids] were young but then, you know, junk is junk so, whatever, I go to
Marshalls, TJMaxx, Macy’s, wherever I am. And again, I’m not a [person
who] specifically every week I go to Macy’s. I might go to Macy’s once
and I went through the kids department, i see things that are good, on
sale. Like the winter sale, you know, fifty [percent] off, I find whatever.
So, it’s really sporadic but whenever I’m somewhere.
I: Do you know there’s a sale before you get there?
No. It’s like, ‘Oh God, It’s great!’ [sounding surpnsed]. If I’m somewhere
and I see something that, you know, I pass by near the Gap and the
kids need something from the Gap, things like that. And [for] my
husband, we just go like one time, two times I buy [for] him. Or if I go to
Marshall’s and I find, well, he only likes certain things, like Ralph Lauren
shirts, or now the Gap, so now I’ll just go when we go and buy whatever
he needs. Ten shirts, pants, we just get it all in one shot and then he’s
done...And I just go right around here. If there’s like, just to save time,
like where I get my haircut they have a boutique right in the hair place
so I find an outfit.
Lori accomplishes her acquisition activities with a notable degree of spontaneity.
Though she always enters the stores with a purpose (i.e., looking to buy X) it is not
uncommon for her to make significant purchases wholly alien to her original intent.
Although she does not plan her shopping trips around store sales, her ability to
unexpectedly buy in large quantities allows her to take full advantage of these
discounts.
Of course, Lori’s impromptu approach is not so random as she suggests. The
stores she “happens" to be in are not just any stores (as she put it “wherever I am”) or,
for that matter, even those closest to her home. The stores Lori finds herself in are
ones which comply with her sense of style, quality, fashion, and status as well as
meeting her standards for convenience. Thus, she is more likely to make her
176
spontaneous purchases in some stores than others. Sears and JCPenny, for example,
are viewed by her as “kind of schlocky” and therefore avoided despite being just as
convenient as Macy’s. It is no accident that Lori finds herself next door to a “nice
[clothing] store" when she shops at the gourmet supermarket. The “House of Bargains"
store which she derides as offering “junk" is not likely to be found next to such a
supermarket.
Nevertheless, while there may be a more complex web of factors influencing
Lori’s practices than she acknowledges —and thus making her behavior less
freewheeling than it would appear— Lori’s approach to acquisition remains
unquestionably casual. Lori does not schedule her acquisition activity to coincide with
the rhythms of household income and expense, as was true of the working class and
working class poor families in the study. Indeed, she tends to be all but ignorant of
such matters. It is common for her to have one of Steve’s paychecks sitting in her “to
do" folder for days, even weeks before she manages to get to the bank to make the
deposit. For Lori purchasing is not keyed to household money flows but takes place at
times largely of her choosing, without a great deal of fore-thought or planning.
...It’s really like, if we’re somewhere, we get it. Like I’m at Macy’s and I
see a comforter [and] it matches [my decor] I’ll go ‘Huh [note: as if
saying, “that’s interesting”\. I’ll get that now.’ It’s not planned, it’s more
whenever...! mean, we’re not very structured. If we want something we
say ‘Okay. We want a car.’ We went and got a car that day. It was not
like ‘It’s time for a new caf We’re not planners in the sense of ‘Okay,
we’re gonna do this now. We’re gonna be able to buy a couch now.’ We
just get what we want.
Similarly, Steve described a situation in which little direct attention is devoted to
upcoming purchases. When I spoke with him, I asked if there were any particular items
he was presently thinking about buying. His response indicated that the question had
177
little meaning for him. Because he is able to satisfy consumption needs and wants as
they arise, Steve does not have a backlog of requests.
What? For me to spend money on something?
I: Things that you’re thinking about getting. Is there anything like that in
your head at the moment?
No. We’ve got, I’ve got basically, I mean, [for] clothes and stuff, we just
went out and bought clothes and whatever. But we go out anytime I
want. You know, Lori goes, she buys my clothes and we can go
anywhere, we just, we go when we need it. It’s not something we plan
or save for. We’re lucky enough to just go out and do what we want to
do.
Importantly, despite the hectic pace of their lives, obtaining the consumer
goods they need and want is not experienced as an onerous task by Lori -or, for that
matter, Steve. Both described it as rather a non-event in their lives. This was true for a
wide range of purchases from food and clothing to automobiles. For the Mandels,
“doing what they want to do” means that acquisition is something of which they take
little notice. They buy things more or less when they need them -sometimes before (as
when Lori happens upon a good sale), sometimes after (as when their schedules
prevent them from getting to the shops). Either way, acquisition activity tends to be
largely unplanned and unnoticed in the lives of these consumers.
Perhaps the most striking evidence of the more casual, less intense character
of acquisition processes in upper-middle class households was provided by the
sometimes subtle cues regarding the place of purchasing in family life. Not only were
routine purchases of items such as food or clothing treated in a unexceptional manner
in upper-middle class families, but this was true of many larger, less frequently
purchased items, as well. Fieldnotes from a Saturday spent with the Hopewell family
178
provide a telling example. On this day, I had spent the morning at a local shopping
district tending to various errands with George Hopewell and the two youngest of the
(five) Hopewell children (Vivian, four and a half and Caroline three). After finishing with
these errands, George, the children and I got back into the family’s ‘90 Crown Victoria
to return to the Hopewells’ home where, at George and his wife Peggy’s invitation, I
joined the family for lunch. While eating our sandwiches and homemade soup, George
told Peggy about the morning’s trip, including details on the new owners of the local
drug store and the poor service he had received from the teenage clerks at the
gourmet deli. At the deli, George had been unsuccessful in his attempt to purchase his
favorite Halloween treat, candy corns. As we finished eating our lunch, Peggy sounded
George out about some plans for the afternoon.
Peggy says to George “I’m thinking that I’m gonna go and buy a
washing machine. That leak is just too much. Now, do you want to
come with me for this or...” Peggy stops mid-sentence. George is
shaking his head as she speaks. He is casually chewing his sandwich.
She continues, “No. You don’t want anything to do with it.” She starts
giggling. “You just want to go get the candy corns and you want me to
take care of it.” George nods as he continues chewing. After swallowing
a few bites he says in a matter-of-fact tone, “Yeah. I’m gonna go over to
Dorothy Winter’s [farm stand] to pick those up, then I’m gonna head
back over to John’s [to get a haircut]..." George continues coordinating
his schedule and the care of the children with Peggy, but says nothing
about the washing machine itself.
The idea of going out to buy a washing machine (purchased at $480.43) had not
simply occurred to Peggy that day with no prior thought on the issue. The Hopewells’
fifteen year-old machine, a gift from George’s parents, had been leaking for some time
and Peggy knew that it would have to be replaced. In this sense, the purchase had, in
fact, been part of Peggy’s thinking for several months prior to her decision to actually
get the item. But Peggy’s failure to purchase the machine earlier was more a factor of
179
a busy schedule and difficulty getting to the store, as well as ambiguity over the extent
of the problem, than conscious efforts to accumulate the funds necessary to obtain the
item. Earlier in the week she had heard a radio advertisement about a sale at Sears
and decided she would try to get to the store to take advantage of it. She had even
called the store to inquire about the sale. In this way, Peggy’s decision should not be
seen as a wholly spontaneous.
Nevertheless, Peggy’s treatment of this purchase was remarkably casual. The
language she used in raising the issue with George (Tm thinking that I'm gonna go
buy a washing machine”) suggests that she and George may not have recently
broached the issue. Though her comment about the leak (referring to it as “that" leak )
indicated that George was aware that there was a problem with their machine, by
saying she was thinking of buying “a" washing machine, Peggy’s words suggest that
she and George had not discussed the purchase in detail. She did not, for example,
refer to “that" washing machine or “the" washing machine that they had selected.
George did not ask for any information about the purchase, simply leaving it to Peggy
to take care of.
It is worth pointing out that similar purchases in working class households were
treated in a strikingly different manner. For example, for the working class Fallons,
purchasing a washer and dryer was a planned, calculated event. Two years ago, when
Artie and Debbie moved into a rental apartment together, they saved money for
several weeks in order to purchase the appliances. Both Debbie and Artie told me that
they were eager to avoid trips to the laundromat, a time-consuming chore that Artie, in
particular, remembered as a unpleasant part of his childhood. After saving $500, the
Fallons went to a discount chain store to get the washer and dryer. Debbie told me
180
about how this purchase was seen as something special by members of their extended
family. The ability of Artie and Debbie to afford such an item was viewed as a mark of
wealth.
Everybody thinks that we’re rich [giggling and smiling shyly]. Artie’s
brother, when we first moved in together, like I said, we saved.
We’re real good savers. We both work, and had made decent
money. We got a brand new washer and dryer. Artie’s brother said,
‘Yeah. I couldn’t get that until I was mam'ed for so long!’ People
couldn’t believe we did as good as we did with the money we had.
Everybody’s like, ‘Yous are rich!’
The purchase of goods like major appliances were experienced as special events in
working class households. For these consumers, such purchases did not simply
“happen” on some random Saturday afternoon when the children were otherwise
occupied and there was an hour or so to spare. Adults and children alike expressed
excitement over the culmination of what were often drawn out processes, following
weeks, sometimes months of preparation. In another working class household, Randi
Estobar (eldercare worker,' divorced, mother of three) described the excitement that
she and her children felt when she purchased a new television and compact disc
player. In vivid detail, Randi recalled the events of the day the Estobars went to buy
these goods.
Oh! I remember the day. They had a great, [the store had] a wagon with
wheels carrying this big box with this big TV and the big box with the CD
player and the kids said ‘Mom! You bought that?’ [imitating tone of
excited amazement]. It was great fun. It was great fun. And, you know,
to have a salesperson pushing your cart for you. That was fun.
1 Randi holds several part-time and seasonal jobs including eldercare worker, assistant in a
retail shop, receptionist, and house cleaner.
181
To be sure, other upper-middle class consumers (as well as working-class
consumers) would have approached the washing machine purchase differently than
Peggy Hopewell. Indeed, other upper-middle class respondents took greater care to
check advice guides such as Consumer Reports prior to making appliance purchases.
In addition, some households were more purposeful in their efforts to secure sale
prices. Some upper-middle class families, including the Mandels, routinely asked
salespeople about reduced-price floor models in order to save money on appliance
purchases. The point is not that upper-middle class consumers uniformly ignore prices
or fail to exert themselves in securing goods. However, the indifferent manner in which
these consumers, at times, approached even extraordinary, high-priced purchases
speaks to the benign character of these events in their lives. Indeed, they are largely
non-events.
The casual nature of consumption in upper-middle class households meant that
these couples were free from the need to constantly revisit issues of consumption and
spending in the way that was prevalent among working class and working class poor
couples. Cindy Dexter {public relations manager, married, mother of three), for
example, illustrated this in her description of she and her husband’s Dave’s treatment
of acquisition. In Cindy’s household, trips to the mall or other nearby shops were a
more frequent occurrence than was true for either the Mandels or the Hopewells. The
Dexters, a dual-career couple, find it difficult to cope with the hassle of constant food
shopping and meal preparation. They take their three children out for dinner an
average of four times a week and more often than not the Food Court at Sylvangate
182
Mall is their eating spot of choice. On these and other shopping trips, the Dexters buy
goods on an as needed (or wanted) basis. Cindy explained her practices this way:
If I want to go out and buy a new dress, I go out and buy a new dress. I
never worry about, ‘Do I have enough money to pay the electric bill?’...I
mean, we’ve never had to question, if we want to go do something
we’ve been able to do it. That’s not really an issue.
Indeed, as Cindy further explained, day-to-day purchasing is not a topic for discussion
in the Dexter house, let alone a cause of significant friction:
Usually we don’t discuss [pause] we know there’s enough money

running around that we don’t really discuss ‘Do I have enough money to
go spend a hundred dollars for a pair of shoes?’ or, we don’t really
discuss that. We do it and deal with the bills. And there’s never been, or
rarely do we worry about cash flow. There’s usually enough running
around that we just don’t.
Indeed, as with the Mandels and the Hopewells, neither Cindy’s attention as an
individual, nor she and Dave's attention as a couple was directed toward the type of
things that routinely preoccupy working class and working class poor consumers. In
sharp contrast to the Naughtons, the working class poor couple who argued about the
purchase of a bottle of soda, these consumers simply “don’t discuss" matters related to
everyday purchasing.
This does not, of course, mean that upper-middle class couples never fight
about money or the ways it is spent. Indeed, although arguments about money tend to
be both more frequent and more intense in poorer households, couples across the
class spectrum argue over issues of these issues (Bfoomstein and Schwartz 19883).
Indeed, in the case of the Dexters, Cindy and Dave each told of disagreements over
spending. Dave likes his “toys” and is admittedly a bit of a spendthrift. Occasionally,
183
Cindy will “not let” Dave indulge his taste for newer, more expensive models and
tension, if not an outright argument ensues. In other households, upper-middle class
respondents like Jane Lawton spoke about occasional clashes that occur when an
unusually high Visa bill arrives. At such times, Jane goes through the items on the bill
with her husband Tom (who takes care of bill paying in their household), making a
case for the logic behind and need for the various purchases she has made for the
family. Still others, like Don and Louise Tallinger spoke of clashes over the need for
certain home decorating projects, like having a couch reupholstered. (Don said no,
Louise said yes. They got the couch reupholstered).
Such differences over spending are not inconsequential. Arguments of this type
can provide a place for other-rooted hostilities to surface, for better or for worse. But
the tension and hostility evident between working class and working class poor
consumers over these issues was of an ever-present nature. When a purchase as
small as a bottle of coke gives rise to an argument, the opportunities for altercation are
innumerable, even in households where little purchasing is done. While upper-middle
class couples too, argued over issues of spending, these arguments did not pepper
everyday life in a way similar to that evident for tense-ridden couples of the working
classes.
The non-issue of consumption in upper-middle class households means that
both as individuals and as couples, the attention of these consumers is infrequently
occupied by matters of acquisition. By contrast, the energy expended by working class
consumers in such altercations —as well as in the more mundane activities engaged in
by “hyper” working class and working class poor consumers (in contrast to the “casual”
upper-middle class)— is significant. It is energy unavailable to be expended in O ther-
184
possibly productive, or creative, for example— ways. Hence, this ability to forego such
mental and emotional energy expenditures can be seen as a class privilege for the
upper-middle class. They have the luxury of not having to think (or argue) about small,
everyday purchases. As a result, for them, acquisition requires less emotional and
mental energy than is true for the working class and working class poor. 2
It should be clear that, as Cindy Dexter suggested, the financial comfort
enjoyed by upper-middle class consumers in the study was central to their casual
approach to acquisition. Knowing that her checking account is never near depletion
she, like Lori Mandel, is free to take advantage of sales when she sees them, without
prior thought or preparation. She does not have to plan ahead in order to make
purchases or wait for particular days of the week or weeks of the month. Relatedly,
when she does make purchases, the financial comfort Lori enjoys grants her the
freedom to take care—physically, mentally and emotionally— of acquisition in its
entirety. As Lori explained with respect to her approach to acquisition “I’ll get to it, we
do it, and then we move on."3 As I show in the remainder of this chapter, having
significant financial resources with which to rely was central to other aspects of upper-
middle class experiences of acquisition, as well. Financial comfort not only allowed
upper-middle class consumers to take lightly that with which others pointedly grapple,
it also rendered acquisition an activity rooted in choice.
2 For similar analysis on the privilege of whites to not have to expend energy dealing with
everyday “in public" racism, see Feagin 1991.
185
Saving Time, Saving Money, and Other Choices
Making choices is widely viewed as the hallmark the modem consumer. When
acting as consumers, individuals are faced with a wide range of goods from which to
choose. It is the prerogative of consumers to select certain goods and services while
rejecting others. As such, making choices is seen as fundamental to consumer
experience.
But as suggested in Chapter Three, some consumers are more hampered in
their ability to make choices than others. Working class poor participants in the study,
for example, often felt as if they had few choices as consumers. Restrained by a highly
restrictive budget, most consumer goods were out of reach, severely limiting their
ability to drive their encounters with the market in the manner they would have liked.
The opposite, however, was true for upper-middle class participants in the
study. For these consumers, “choice" was a central, defining feature of their acquisition
experiences. This became evident in a variety of ways. For one, it was common for
upper-middle class respondents to make specific reference to the importance of choice
in their acquisition experiences. Throughout interviews and observations with these
respondents, the language of choice was consistently invoked as they explained their
acquisition practices. The predominant feeling set forth by these consumers was that
they were generally able to act on their consumption desires (or choices). George
Hopewell (business executive, married, father of rive) stated it simply: “I feel very
comfortable. I don’t feel like I want for anything." Perhaps ironically, the importance of
“choice" in George’s experience was most notable not in terms of the items he had
3 Lori refers here to all kinds of purchasing, alluding to her “bulk” shopping approach (see
above). This includes even food items, as Lori tends to buy in quantity and store items such as
meats in her basement freezer.
186
obtained, but rather in terms of those he had elected not to obtain. Indeed, the failure
to make a purchase was generally experienced by upper-middle class consumers as a
matter of choice. George explained it this way.
You know, there are a lot of things we could buy with the money we
have but I just don’t, I just don’t care about a bigger TV. I mean, I
could go buy a bigger TV. I could buy a new car. I couldn’t buy a
Rolls Royce but uh, you know. I wear a Marine Corps watch you can
buy for $21.1don’t want a Rolex. I don’t need a Rolex or whatever
and uh, it would be nice, they’re great watches and all but I just
don’t feel a desire to have it. I don’t.
Later, George and I spoke about his feelings regarding his abilities as a consumer
relative to others in his social network. George was explicit that choice was central to
his assessment:
If somebody’s got a fancy watch or a car or a boat, and I’d love to

have a sailboat, but I don’t feel bad about somebody or feel bad
about myself in relation to them if they have that. This is a world of
choices and I just haven’t made the choice to do that yet.
George’s words are telling. The fact that he has not “made the choice” to buy the boat
“yet” illustrates his sense that he could have it today, and likely will have it in the future.
Thus, the importance of choice in the accounts of upper-middle class
consumers was not about possessing each item they deemed desirable. Instead,
these consumers’ feelings were more about their sense that desirable goods were
within their grasp. The fact that they were able, from a financial perspective, to access
these goods meant that failing to make those purchases was about choice.
Others also spoke about the numerous items which they elected to forego.
Returning to the Mandel family, Steve Mandel offered a similar description of his
feelings as George. During one of our interviews, I asked Steve how he felt about his
187
position as a consumer relative to others in his social network. He told me that he and
his friends were “all successful,” “all in the same boat" and that as far as he could tell
“everybody does pretty much what they want to.” This, of course, does not mean that
they all have the same things. One friend has a late model luxury car, something in
which Steve is not interested. Another just had a tennis court built on his property. This
too does not interest Steve. Others, like his neighbor with the big-screen television, do
have goods which Steve would like. Steve, however, experienced his failure to obtain
such a television set as a choice.
I mean, [I might like] a big-screen TV or something. I go to my

neighbor’s house and he has a huge big screen TV. Now, I could
get one of those, but I don’t feel like spending the money on it. I
mean, a thirty-inch TV is fine, [it’s] enough. I’m not saying I wouldn’t
like that, [or] that I wouldn’t like to have a Mercedes, but I wouldn’t
spend the money, waste the money on something like that when I
have something that’s just as good, or it gets the job done the same
way. So, maybe that way I would like to have something [that others
have] but -and I could have [it]. I’d like to have things like that,
which I can afford, but I don’t think it’s worth it [emphasis mine].
Steve exercises clear discretion as a consumer. Though there are, in fact, things he
does not presently own that he might enjoy having, it is clear to Steve that foregoing
such items is a result of his decision. He has made the choice; he is in control.
I could choose to go buy season tickets to the Rovers. I could afford

that. But I don’t choose to spend five thousand dollars on that at this
point in my life.
The importance of choice in upper-middle class experience was also evident in
more specific aspects of consumers practices. For example, although money for
consumer goods was not a pressing concern in these households, upper-middle class
consumers in the study did, nevertheless, employ money saving strategies. Indeed,
188
buying sale items, clipping coupons and shopping at discount outlets were, by no
means, alien practices to these respondents. At the same time, however, none of
these consumers placed the heavy emphasis on saving money that working class and
(to a greater extent) working class poor respondents did. For upper-middle class
consumers, buying items at less than full retail price was something that they did not
as a matter of necessity but as a matter of choice. For these consumers, it was more
about some generalized sense of what it means to be a “smart shopper,” or simply
keeping, as opposed to spending one’s money.
Indeed, oftentimes, buying goods at a discounted price is no more difficult than
buying them at full price. American retailers feature sales on merchandise throughout
the year.4 Virtually any time a customer enters a store they can find at least some
items significantly discounted (i.e., at least twenty percent below full retail price). As a
result, with the exception of early season fashions, it does not necessarily require
much greater effort to purchase items on sale than to pay full price. For example,
many supermarkets have instituted “smart cards” and thus eliminated the need for
consumers to cut coupons out of store circulars. In some supermarkets, the cards are
not even necessary. This was the case at the supermarket most frequented by upper-
middle class respondents. At the supermarket and at other retail sites, upper-middle
class respondents in the study did not scoff at sale goods. They were happy to take
advantage of lower prices. As one respondent noted:
4 This practice is not the same the world over. In the United Kingdom, for example, sales are
generally limited to two end-of-season sales each year, one after Christmas and one in late
summer. Although this is beginning to change, historically most stores feature only small
discounts/sale racks at other times of the year. In the United States, special sale days are held
throughout the year. Many are linked to national holidays (e.g., President’s Day, Easter,
Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Columbus Day, Veteran’s Day, Christmas).
189
Why should I spend more money for the same thing if I don’t have to? If
I see it on sale then I buy it on sale...It’s just [pause] why not?
(Jill Parkin, education consultant, divorced, mother of one)
Others spoke explicitly about buying goods at lower prices so that they could either
save the money or spend it on other things. Jane Lawton (family caregiver, married,
mother of four), for example, routinely waits for things to go on sale before making
purchases. Here, Jane pointed out the simple logic of buying goods at cheaper prices.
If I see something in Laura Ashley that I know [my daughter] Lauren

would look gorgeous in, I'll still wait until it goes on sale because she’ll
be able to, you know, I’ll be able to buy two dresses for the price of one.
Indeed, when I asked upper-middle class respondents why they clipped coupons or
bought goods on sale, most seemed perplexed by the question. Regardless of how
much money consumers have at their disposal, the feeling was that it simply makes
sense to spend less rather than more on a particular good. As Steve Mandel
suggested, “It’s my money. I may as well hang onto it.”
Upper-middle class consumers tended to employ these strategies much more
sporadically than working class and working class poor consumers (see Chapter
Three). These consumers tended to be far less rigid about their reliance on coupons or
sale prices. Like Lori Mandel who flitted between shopping at the gourmet supermarket
and using coupons at the “standard” store, upper-middle class consumers generally
were more fickle about discount and sale shopping than the working class and working
class poor.
Interviews with one respondent, Jane Lawton, provide an illustrative example of
the role of choice in upper-middle class consumers’ experiences. Jane is a married
mother of four who cares for her family full-time. In the past three years, the Lawtons’
190
income has increased dramatically. Ten years ago, after living frugally for four years
on a small inheritance and then her husband Tom’s modest salary as an intern with a
law firm, Tom began earning almost $200,000 a year (over ten times his previous
salary) upon completion of his professional training. Following a brief period of work
with a firm in Arizona, the Lawtons returned to the Sylvan Valley area when Tom was
offered a post with a highly prestigious firm at an even higher income. Three years
ago, Tom became a partner of the practice. Since that time, his income (including
substantial bonuses) has grown —according to Jane, “beyond anything we would have
thought"— to a staggering $900,000 per year. Though the Lawtons believe that
changes in Tom’s area of specialization and the composition of his firm may result in a
significant drop in their earning capacity, they nevertheless, currently enjoy an income
that is well beyond that of their families of origin, siblings, and indeed, most of the
people with whom they associate.
During our interviews, Jane spoke effortlessly about the various money-saving
strategies she employs. Rather than buying furniture from antique dealers or other
retail outlets, Jane has relied primarily on second-hand finds from estate sales to
furnish the Lawtons home. When buying appliances she often asks salespeople about
floor models that may be available at discounted prices. Though Jane has abandoned
some of her former bargain-shopping practices (e.g., shopping at a hospital benefit
thrift store), she continues to search out bargains and to delay purchasing when she
thinks she can get a better price
I’m still very careful. You know, I can afford better, several notches
above, but no, I still quibble and I still go ‘Naaaah. I’m gonna wait [for a
sale.]’
191
In another example, Jane proudly pointed out the cornflower blue and white striped
loveseat she purchased from Bloomingdale’s for $249. She initially spotted the couch
in the clearance section of the store during a routine “run through" while shopping at
the mall for children’s clothing. Though the loveseat was being sold at a significant
discount, Jane held off until the price was further reduced. She ultimately purchased
the couch for thirty-three percent less than the original price.
...I always watch Bloomingdale’s furniture department —they have a

clearance department. And I watched this couch [pointing] go from
four hundred dollars down to three fifty, down to two ninety nine and
I bought it at two ninety nine and then got an extra fifty knocked off.
I: How did you get the extra fifty off?
Because they had a one day twenty percent plus ten percent off and
it ended up being, well, a two hundred forty-nine dollar couch. So I
bought that and then I picked it up myself in the van, I laid the back
seat down because it would have cost me fifty dollars to have it
delivered and [my son Eric] and I unloaded it. So right there is a two
hundred and forty nine dollar couch [broad, proud smile].
Jane was explicit in recognizing that her price consciousness was something
that she selectively employs. Though she certainly “can afford better" she generally
chooses to wait for bargain prices or otherwise refuses to pay what she thinks is too
much money for consumer goods. For Jane, having a high income allows her to
experience bargain shopping as an exercise of power and control. The fact that she
can comfortably forego such practices if she so chooses —and, indeed,in many
instances she does— has an important effect on the experience. For Jane,bargain
shopping is an exercise in power; the power to choose.
Now, money is power to the extent that I can go, ‘You know what? I
could buy that if I wanted to but I’m not gonna. I’m gonna wait till it goes
192
on clearance,’ or Tm gonna get it cheaper, I’m gonna get it in the

garbage.’ And I can make that choice. I like that.
Jane’s words indicate that although she is participating in what is ostensibly the same
activity that she did some ten years ago (i.e., bargain shopping), the experience of
doing so is different today from what it was in the past as a result of her financial
security. Knowing that she could easily afford the couch at full-price turned the
experience into a game of sorts for Jane, one in which she calls the shots. Of course
working class respondents also enjoyed getting a good bargain, but in no instance did
feelings of power, control, and choice appear to play a positive role in shaping their
experiences.5
A third (and also ironic) way in which the centrality of choice in upper-middle
class acquisition practices became evident was through the management of constraint.
As was true in the case of the Mandels, financial constraints generally played little role
in shaping the practices of upper-middle class consumers in the study. The overriding
experience for these respondents was one in which financial issues were of little
consequence. This was in contrast to the experiences of working class and working
5 As part of this discussion, it is worth noting that Jane’s experiences of (relative) penury at
earlier points in her life may indeed have contributed to her continuing application of money-
saving strategies. The fact that she and Tom struggled financially during the early years of the
marriage did appear to leave an impression upon Jane of the meaning of money and what are
appropriate ways for it to be spent. Although virtually all of the upper-middle class respondents
in the study were raised in upper-middle class households with generally similar standards of
living relative to what they experience today, most did experience the “pinch” of limited incomes
during their college or graduate school years. Several respondents spoke of the effects of those
years on their attitudes toward and habits regarding spending today.
Nevertheless, neither Jane nor other upper-middle class respondents in the study
evidenced attitudes toward or habits regarding spending that were influenced more by those
experiences than by their current financial state. In other words, in no instance did respondents
live well below their (current) means, regardless of their experiences of the past. Popular
impressions of individuals raised during the Depression years have suggested that such
experiences would trump later realities. Evidence of this, however, has not, in fact, been
193
class poor consumers whose activities were highly circumscribed by their limited
financial means.
Nevertheless, this did not mean that the acquisition practices of upper-middle
class consumers were wholly unconstrained. In particular, although financial
constraints generally had little influence on the practices of these consumers, time
constraints clearly did.6 Indeed, the pace of life in most upper-middle class households
in the study was decidedly hectic. Each upper-middle class respondent in the paid
work force spoke of long work days (commonly ten to twelve hours per day) and/or
work obligations that routinely extended beyond the formal limits of the job (e.g.,
entertaining clients; overnight travel; working at home in the evenings or on weekends.
See Kanter 1977; Schor 1992; Hochschild 1997).7 In dual-career families, the impact
of work-related demands on family life were particularly difficult to manage. Don and
Louise Tallinger, for example, had to juggle their travel schedules in order to insure
that at least one of them was home with their children each night.8
produced. Indeed, Glenn Elder's well-known study on Children of the Depression has little to say
along these lines. See Elder (1977) for his own discussion on the lack of evidence on this issue.
6 O f course, there were other constraints —or at least influences— on upper-middle class
consumers’ lives. Cultural issues, for example, could render certain practices out of the
question. In this discussion, I focus on the constraint most prevalent in the accounts of upper-
middle class consumers in the study; time constraints.
7 In The Time Bind, Hochschild suggests that the hectic pace of life is not class specific.
Working class respondents in her study were “addicted” to overtime, not only because of their
employer's (subtle) demands, but because they had come to depend on the “extra” income. My
findings, however, offer a contradictory portrait of the relationship between class and the issue of
time-deficits. For findings similar to my own, see Lareau (1998).
8 The Tallingers were not always successful in their efforts and Louise's mother was
occasionally called upon to stay overnight with the boys. Don and Louise’s eldest son, eleven
year-old Garrett, was upset by the frequency with which his mother did overnight travel for work.
Eventually, Louise left her job, hoping to find a position involving minimal or no travel.
194
In addition to the effects of heavy work demands in upper-middle class
households, the social lives of upper-middle class respondents appeared to be both
busier and more formally organized than those of their working class and working
class poor counterparts. Rather than informal visits with neighbors and kin, upper-
middle class respondents spoke of planned evenings out and scheduled dinner parties
with friends. Furthermore, central to the hectic pace of upper-middle class family life
was the plethora of formal activities in which children participated (Lareau 1998).
Parents (particularly mothers) spent much fixed-interval time both during the week and
on weekends managing children’s participation in things like soccer leagues, art
classes, and religious school lessons. Working class and working class poor families
led far less hectic lives. This became evident not only through interviews and
observations themselves, but also in attempts to schedule my visits with these families.
Indeed, it was a rare occurrence when Linda Yanelli (working class) had to several
times alter one of our scheduled shopping visits in order to accommodate weekend
activities, including dropping her son off at a birthday party, going to football practice,
attending a family barbeque. As Linda remarked: “This is real unusual for us. Usually
we don’t do nothin’.”
Thus, put simply, upper-middle class respondents tended to be “money rich
but time poor." The time these consumers had available for acquisition activity was
often severely limited. As a result, the acquisition practices employed by these
consumers included strategies to deal with their tight schedules. Just as working class
and working class poor consumers had to cope with financial constraints, upper-middle
class consumers had to cope with time constraints.
195
For example, upper-middle class consumers could and often did pay for
convenience as a means of saving time.9 In some households (the Mandels, the
Hopewells) this meant receiving regular home deliveries of dairy goods, local produce,
or other grocery items. Others routinely shopped by catalogue (the Taliingers, the
Dexters), paying additional shipping and handling charges both upon acceptance of
the goods and, in the event that an item needed to be returned. In some families, the
convenience of eating out (or bringing prepared foods home) was virtually an everyday
occurrence (the Dexters, the Parkins). Shopping in local, apparently more expensive
shops was also part of the “paying for convenience” strategy employed by upper-
middle class consumers.10 Moreover, although it was not always clear that shopping
locally meant paying top dollar, upper-middle class respondents were fairly confident
that it cost more to do so, but did not mind. As Louise Tallinger remarked on her
patronage of a nearby but seemingly more expensive supermarket, “It’s definitely
worth it." These consumers did not, usually, take the time to shop around at several
stores to insure that they secured the lowest price.
A second way in which time constraints influenced upper-middle class
acquisition practices also had to do with the manner in which these respondents went
about shopping for goods. For these consumers, acquisition was often approached in
a highly efficient and instrumental fashion. It was common for upper-middle class
consumers in the study to adopt the purposeful approach to acquisition described by
9 O f course, one does not always pay more for convenience. Sometimes consumers pay less for
convenience, as when bulk or other large quantity purchases are made and consumers enjoy
quantity discounts.
10 Schor (1998) suggests that the “convenience-oriented lifestyle" is often part of people’s lives
when they are “overworked” and “overspent"
196
Lori Mandel. Lori’s emphasis was on efficiency in purchasing. Rather than comparison
shop or otherwise spend time and effort scrutinizing merchandise, Lori focused on
meeting the goal of obtaining the desired items (“‘Where can I get it fast?’ Get it. I can’t
worry about it. I just get it.”) She finds humorous the idea of shopping as a way to
spend (or, as some would have it, “kill") time: That’s not me. I just don't have the
time."11
Others with hectic schedules also treated shopping as something to be
accomplished with as little time expended as possible. Louise Tallinger, the mother
with a busy work-related travel schedule routinely crammed shopping trips into small
intervals of time, wedged between other errands (e.g., dropping one of her sons off at
basketball or soccer practice). Indeed, when I asked Louise about accompanying her
on a trip to the supermarket, she told me that I needed to be at her house at 7:45 on a
Sunday morning so that we could be at the grocery store when it opened. Louise
frequently does her food shopping at that hour in order to “get a jump” on the day and
complete this task before her boys are even out of bed.
In the Hopewell household, Peggy, a full-time caregiver to her family, was
similarly purposeful in her acquisition practices. “Obsessed" as she put it, with saving
time, Peggy reported never entering stores unless she has a clear picture in mind of
what she intends to purchase. For example, when shopping for children’s clothing,
11 It should be noted that among upper-middle class consumers, there appeared to be a greater
sense than was true for those from working class groups that shopping is a frivolous activity and
not an acceptable way for one to spend time, if not geared toward meeting a specific goal. This
goal did not necessarily have to be to purchase goods. As I discuss in Chapter Eight, sociality
(i.e., spending time with a friend or family member), for example, was viewed by consumers
from across the class spectrum as an acceptable goal of a shopping trip. Nevertheless, upper-
middle class consumers generally appeared to be far less comfortable with the notion of
shopping as in and of itself, enjoyable. There appeared to be an underlying sense among these
respondents that shopping was too silly of an enterprise to be (proudly) engaged in a serious
manner, by a serious person.
197
Peggy makes an assessment of the child in question’s wardrobe before leaving the
house. She does not want to spend time in the store trying to figure out what the child
needs.
I: How about clothes shopping, say, for the kids. How does that
happen?
I take the child that needs the clothing with me —[this is] with the older
children— and they have to tell me exactly what they need.
I: So that’s with Kenneth, Jean and Wil.
Kenneth, Jean, and Wil uh huh [nodding]. And we know exactly what we
want when we walk out the door. I don’t want to waste time.
I: You talk about it ahead of time? You ask them?
Yup. I ask them ‘What do you need? Let’s make a list. What do you
have that fits?’ We try everything on so we know exactly what we need
and then we go right to the Gap [laughter] because it’s five minutes
from the house...
Peggy’s approach was confirmed on a field observation conducted several weeks after
this interview. When I called Peggy to see if she thought she would be doing any
shopping over the next several days, she told me that she was planning to go to the
Gap the following day with her eldest son. During that conversation she said that she
had already “reviewed" with him his wardrobe and the items he needed to buy. (“He
needs a pair of jeans and two pairs of khakis..." The following day as we left the
Hopewell driveway on our way to the store, Peggy discussed with him, again, the items
he needed to purchase. I sat in the back seat of the station wagon with three year-old
Caroline and four and a half year-old Vivian.
Peggy looks at her watch as we drive toward Marshall Ave. and [the
shopping district]. She says ‘It's five [minutes] after [eleven]. Okay, so,
let's review.’ [She looks over at Kenneth, sitting in the passenger seat]
198
‘You're getting two pairs of khakis, one pair of jeans, how are you on
turtlenecks?’ [Kenneth mumbles a response that I cannot hear. Caroline
is talking to me in the back seafj. Peggy continues: 'What about collared
shirts? How are you one those? [Kenneth responds, speaking softly. As
we wait for the traffic light, Peggy is tapping her fingernails on the
dashboard in rapid succession].
It took just under thirty minutes for the Hopewells to complete this shopping trip, from
the time we arrived at the store to the time of our departure. Within that period, Peggy
left Kenneth for a time to make his selections while she (along with myself, Caroline
and Vivian) went across the street to the automatic teller to retrieve some cash. In
addition, eleven year-old Jean went to a (different) bank to make a deposit. When she
returned to the store, she spoke with her mother for a few minutes about the events
that transpired at the bank. Thus, Peggy managed to accomplish several tasks during
this one trip.
In short, Peggy’s tight schedule rendered acquisition a purposeful enterprise.
Though Peggy could, and indeed did, deviate from her list once at store, she
nevertheless took specific steps to keep her shopping trips focused on the “task" (as
she put it) at hand. In the main, Peggy appeared to be successful in those attempts.
A third way in which upper-middle class acquisition practices were affected by
constraints of time regarded the ability of these consumers to make purchases in a
timely fashion. While accumulating the funds necessary to make a purchase was
rarely a problem in these households, finding the time to get to the store and complete
the transaction sometimes was. In some households, tight schedules prevented upper-
middle class consumers from completing acquisition activities as swiftly as they would
have liked. It was not uncommon for nonessential purchases to languish undone.
199
Again, the Hopewell family provides a useful illustration. During interviews, both
George and Peggy spoke with regret about the “unfinished” condition of their home.
Though the Hopewells had moved into their seven-bedroom house over six years ago,
decorating projects such as window treatments in the dining room had yet to be
completed. George spoke about his frustrations in answer to my question about goods
he would like to purchase.
I: Are there any things, right now, are there any particular things that
you want to be able to buy but aren't getting?
Yeah. I would like to be able to finish the house. I want to get curtains
up and chairs and rugs and couches and kind of, frankly, and I’ve told
[Peggy] this, I would be embarrassed to do a lot of entertaining. We just
don't have it ready. We need some dining room chairs and, it's a
function of just doing it, you know. It's time and it's effort and she
doesn't have it and I don't have it.
George left virtually all household decorating tasks to Peggy. Though he did not like
the fact that she had not completed this decorating work, he saw this as a temporary
situation, linked to current constraints of time.
...I don't get on her too bad...l think [in] another year or so when
Caroline’s a little bit more out of the house she'll have the energy to go
buy some couches and get the curtains up. That's, but those things, it’s
just an issue of time.12
12 Interestingly, Peggy portrayed George’s attitude toward her difficulties in finishing the
household decorating in a different light According to Peggy, George “grouses" about it from
time to time. At the same time, George complains if everyday tasks are not tended to. For the
present, Peggy has decided to ignore the decorating and, in an effort to stave off daily
complaints from George, she focuses her efforts on getting the day-to-day household work
completed: “[In his mind] doing the decorating, for instance, has no impact on getting dinner on.
You know, it’s seven years [since we moved in here] but every night dinner’s got to be on the
table and if it's not I hear about it, so I pick the thing that causes me the least problem from him.
I finished the kitchen and I finished the family room, I got those two rooms decorated and done,
but [usually] I wind up doing the [everyday] things, the meals and all that stuff, I find.”
200
Peggy, herself, was annoyed about the delays. Because time was the Issue and
money was not a significant concern, she tried to make some progress by hiring a
decorator. This strategy, however, proved to be problematic. Soon after beginning
work with the decorator, Peggy discontinued the service.
I tried going with the decorator [and] wound up with the sofa in the
family room and, that I don't like and they wouldn't take back. [It was
from a catalogue] and I was so disgusted with that I haven't had her
back. I still don't have curtains in the dining room or, you know, it took
me forever to get the kids rooms [decorated] and they're not quite
finished yet, you know...
For Peggy, her unfinished house is a testament to the ever-present demands on her
time.
I mean, I look at that chair, see the stuffing coming out of the top
[pointing to an upholstered arm chair with a three inch rip on the top
seam] ? You know, it's just that kind of thing. [Both of those chairs]
need to be redone. The cording is coming off of that one, this needs
to be recovered. Uh, but you know, when I see that chair I'm not
looking at the stuffing coming out of it. I'm looking at the amount of
time it would take me to take my fabric from the curtain, go to the
fabric store, select a fabric [that matches], get it to the upholsters,
get it back, you know. It's such a huge amount of time...Then I have
these expensive grass fault shades I special ordered. I love them
and then we had to put in a new window [and] now they don't fit.
They're sitting in the bottom of a cabinet all I have to do is call
somebody to come out and adjust them and hang them and you
know it's just another thing to do.
Peggy seemed exhausted just thinking about all the time and effort involved in
completing these tasks.
It should be noted that, despite their misgivings, the Hopewell home was, by
most any standards, a beautifully decorated living space. Among the notable features
201
of the home were a variety of oriental rugs (found throughout the house),13 a gold
trimmed Chippendale-style bureau (at the entryway), and the an enormous (the pit
itself was about five feet by five feet) stone fireplace in the formal living room. The
Hopewells did, in fact, do at least some entertaining at their home, although the parties
mentioned by George and Peggy generally took place in the garden, rather than
interior of the house (e.g., an annual Fourth of July Barbeque). Clearly, personal
standards of decorating are important to individual assessments in such matters.
Nevertheless, both Peggy and George viewed the house as “undone” and it
was constraints of time which they saw as responsible for this state of affairs. Their
busy schedules prevented them from obtaining goods -and thus, decorating their
home- in a manner they deemed desirable.14
These practices —paying for convenience, approaching acquisition in an
instrumental fashion, leaving nonessential acquisition tasks undone— all are linked to
the time constraints under which upper-middle class consumers operate. For upper-
middle class consumers in the study, time constraints were a central factor influencing
their practices of acquisition. In some measure, shortages of time were to upper-
middle class respondents what shortages of money were to the working class and
working class poor. Indeed, although the source of shortage was different across this
13 The rug in the dining room was purchased for $10,000.
14 In the case of the Hopewells and indeed, other upper-middle class families in the study,
household decorative items appeared to be particularly likely to be casualties of families’ busy
schedules. Arguably, this was due to the somewhat unique nature of such purchases. Home
furnishings (including items like sofas, rugs, lamps) tend to be: (1) relatively high priced, (2)
goods for which there is a wide selection featuring wide range of stylistic choices and, (3)
something with which consumers usually live for a long time. This being so, such purchases
were generally seen as requiring more time and effort to be secured than other, less expensive
and stylistically-imbued goods.
202
divide, its effects were, in some measure, quite similar. Managing the constraints faced
by these consumers —be they financial or temporal— resulted in similar experiences.
When Peggy Hopewell “reviewed" with her children the garments they needed before
going to the store, her actions were reminiscent of Janet DeSefano’s, the working
class poor mother who wrote to her son asking for details regarding the sneakers he
had requested (see Chapter Three). Similarly, in leaving home decorating projects only
partially complete, upper-middle class consumers can be seen as living with “loose
ends" in acquisition, not altogether different from the experiences of working class
respondents (see Chapter Four). In the Yanelli family (working class) it was the
purchase of a basement door that was delayed for several years; in the Mandel house
it was formal dining room furniture. In these ways, the experience of coping with the
constraints faced by these consumers can be seen as quite similar.
Nevertheless, even in the case of these seemingly cross-class experiences,
one crucial factor rendered them fundamentally different by class: the issue of choice.
Living with a tight schedule was essentially viewed by upper-middle class respondents
as a matter of choice. It was about one’s lifestyle and decisions they had made
regarding how to direct their careers, organize family life, educate and nurture their
children. Although they may not have had full autonomy over each aspect of their busy
schedules (e.g., having to travel more often than desired), the overall time package in
which they lived was seen as something over which they maintained a significant level
of control. If their lives were hectic, it was because they had decided to have four
children, two careers, a busy social schedule, etc. (As Peggy Hopewell offered, “I
203
could have a less stressful life but I just don't think it would be good for the children.")15
It was proactive decisions on their part which created the constraints under which they
lived. It was, in essence, a matter of choice.
This was reflected in the way upper-middle class respondents spoke about time
pressures and their relationship to acquisition practices. Indeed, these consumers
often spoke dismissively about the influence of time constraints on their practices,
remarking in an offhand manner that it was “just an issue of time” (emphasis mine), as
George Hopewell suggested, keeping them from completing acquisition tasks. Such
comments were frequently accompanied by shrugs and slight shakes of the head,
indicating that this was seen as a minor detail that could and would be overcome.
Indeed, despite the fact that these time constraints shaped much of upper-
middle class consumers’ behavior they were not experienced as binding. On most any
day, upper-middle class consumers might “steal” some time by getting to the office
later than usual, delaying the family’s evening meal, dropping their child off a little late
for soccer practice or skipping their game of golf. And even the busiest of schedules
would, with some regularity, open up when at the last minute a business trip was
cancelled or grandma would visit and take care of the children.
The relative flexibility of time constraints generally allowed for greater degrees
of freedom in consumers’ actions than was true of financial constraints (as
experienced by the working class and working class poor). Although Peggy Hopewell
operates under a tight schedule, once she arrived at the Gap (looking for clothing for
her eldest son) she could either rush about her business (buying only what her son
15 Here, Peggy referred to her decision to forego the purchase of regular childcare for her
youngest children. She was concerned that a babysitter would not “give the attention that's
needed” and that the girls would watch too much television.
204
had originally requested) and get home quickly in order to have more time to prepare
the night’s dinner or, alternatively, take a more leisurely, exploratory approach and
either rush to get dinner on the table at the family’s usual dinner hour or serve the
evening meal slightly later that evening. In addition, Peggy could, and did, stray from
her original list (for example, asking Kenneth whether he needed collared shirts).16 By
contrast, when money is the issue and one’s budget is tight, making such adjustments
is not so easy. For example, for Janet DeStefano, the working class poor woman who,
like Peggy, reviewed her child’s request before heading to the store, on-the-spot
adjustments were more difficult to make. Oftentimes, Janet would be simply unable to
stray from her intended list of purchases, as she would not have the cash (or credit) on
hand to do so. And on those occasions when she did have the needed cash, the
ramifications for spending it would likely reverberate beyond dinnertime that night (see
Chapter Four).
In short, the fact that upper-middle class consumers were not, for the most
part, concerned with financial issues when making purchases lent an air of freedom
and choice to their consumer experiences generally. Again, being able to afford,
financially, to make a purchase rendered the experience of not doing so a choice. This
was true not only with respect to items these consumers had elected not to purchase
(as with George Hopewell’s sailboat or Steve Mandel’s big screen TV) but also with
16 Peggy was, in fact, somewhat leisurely in shopping that day. Although we were in and out of
the store in a relatively short period, she did glance through a clearance rack of women’s
clothing (and encouraged her daughter Jean to do so, as well) while we were waiting for
Kenneth. She did not appear to feel rushed at that time. Peggy considered, momentarily, trying
on a pair of black and white checkered cigarette pants that she liked. Ultimately, however, she
“couldn’t be bothered" to try them on and we left with only Kenneth’s selections. This included
one item (a thermal pullover shirt for $24.50) that was not part of his original list.
205
respect to desired items these consumers simply did not have the time to purchase
(e.g., new home furnishings). Similarly, buying sale items or discounted goods was
experienced as a “smart" choice rather than compulsory. In each case, with financial
considerations out of the way, upper-middle class consumers experienced their actions
as a matter of choice. As Lori Mandel’s words revealed as she spoke of the place of
shopping in her life, choice was integral to upper-middle class practices of acquisition:
“[Shopping’s] not important to me. I mean, I guess it could be but it’s just, I can’t fit it
into my life” (emphasis mine).
Upper-middle class consumers confront commodity markets from positions that
are significantly different from those of the working class and working class poor.
Whereas consumers of the working classes could be characterized as “non
consumers” and “hyper-consumers” (either all the time, as with the working class poor,
or part of the time, as with the working class), the label “casual consumer" better fits
upper-middle class respondents in the study. The place of acquisition in the lives of
these individuals is decidedly muted. They make purchases “on the fly," while doing
other things. Planning, in the sense of devoting pointed attention to how one will
accomplish the goal of obtaining needed or wanted goods (or services) is not a
common practice in these households.
Being a “casual consumer” means having choices. In this sense, upper-middle
class consumers engage the world of consumption in the manner in which it is meant
to be engaged. The experience of obtaining goods is, for them, essentially an
experience of choice. Indeed, even when they fail to buy an item (because they do not
have the time, because they would rather wait for a sale, because they would prefer to
206
keep rather than spend their money), choice is a central, defining aspect of their
experience.
In the face of such striking contrasts between the acquisition processes in
which upper-middle class consumers engage relative to those of the working class and
working class poor, the notion that consumption is a classless arena would appear to
be woefully inaccurate. The enterprise of acquisition is, in fundamental ways, a
different enterprise across this class boundary. In this chapter, I have described the
contours of upper-middle class market relations. With these basic parameters in mind,
I now turn (as in Chapter Four) to a more finely tuned analysis that considers in greater
detail the meaning of these practices for the dimensions of habitus, as they develop
through acquisition practices.
207
CHAPTER 6
FROM A DISTANCE: THINKING AND FEELING

IN UPPER-MIDDLE CLASS PRACTICES OF ACQUISITION
In Chapter Four I detailed the ways in which the practices of working class and
working class poor consumers are characterized by emphases on issues of the
current period and, relatedly, are particularly clear and uncomplicated in tone. In the
present chapter, my analysis is centered on these same dimensions of consumers’
experiences, focused instead on the experiences of upper-middle class respondents.
Considered in light of the findings presented in Chapter Four, this analysis provides
clear evidence that class affects acquisition processes in considerable ways.
Vagueness and Complexity in the Practices of Upper-middle Class Consumers
The clarity and simplicity which characterized the experiences of working class
and working class poor consumers (see Chapter Four) was not evident in the accounts
of upper-middle class respondents. For these consumers, clear vision of the type
evidenced by the working class and working class poor was replaced by vaguer
notions of available resources and the destination of monies. Free from having to
watch their spending as closely as the working class and working class poor, these
consumers were less precise in their thinking about expenditures. As I show below,
zero-sum calculations so common in the everyday figuring of working class consumers
were rarely employed by members of the upper-middle class. In short, for upper-
middle class respondents in the study, acting as a consumer was a far less precise
affair.
208
The Effects of Complex and Indeterminate Budgetary Systems
As described in Chapter Two, in contrast to the generally straightforward
financial situations under which working class and working class poor respondents
operated, the situation for upper-middle class consumers generally involved a more
complex array of both inputs and outputs. Upper-middle class families’ financial
resources involved not only regular income from work but also included additional
money sources and holdings including: cash in savings and checking accounts;
stocks, bonds, securities; rental income from property ownership; open lines of credit;
multiple credit cards; work-related bonuses. Other, less immediately accessible
resources included: Individual Retirement Accounts; Certificates of Deposit; retirement
plans (often with large contributions from employers); inheritance prospects; life
insurance policies; loans and gifts from kin; family heirlooms; home equity; tax
deductions (for home ownership, business-related expenses).
At the same time, the regular (and irregular) billed expenses (i.e., those not
handled immediately with cash payment) with which these consumers contend also
include a wide array of sources. As previously mentioned, in interviews with working
class and (to a greater extent) working class poor respondents, gaining a sense of the
household’s expenses was generally a straightforward matter. These respondents
could easily list all of their monthly bills, often noting the exact costs of expenses. For
upper-middle class respondents, however, answers were generally more complicated.
In addition to the basic mortgage costs (generally including property taxes and
insurance), utility payments and car insurance, these respondents also tended to have
rather lengthy lists of regular and irregular expenses including bills for. cellular phones
and/or beepers; magazine and newspaper subscriptions; association and club
209
memberships; home delivered foods (e.g., dairy, produce); charity contributions; credit
cards (including both individual and company cards); private school tuition; children's
activities; household services (e.g., landscaping work; pool maintenance; household
cleaning and other domestic work); professional licensing fees. Thus, upper-middle
class families' financial situations were more complex than those of working class and
working class poor consumers in the study.
The broad and varied character of the inputs and outputs in upper-middle class
households was a central factor in creating a murky tone in the thoughts and actions of
these consumers. With more elaborate resource bases at their disposal these
respondents tended to have foggier notions of their financial situation and spending
habits than was true of their working class counterparts. As a result, deciding whether
or not to purchase an item or how to pay for it was more of an exercise in rough
estimation than precision thinking. As discussed in Chapter Five, the activities of
obtaining goods were generally more casual among upper-middle class consumers
than the working class and working class poor as these respondents were able to
forego the constant, detailed monitoring of spending exhibited by those consumers.
The vague and imprecise nature of the calculations undertaken by upper-
middle class respondents can be traced not only to the relatively high earned incomes
of these respondents but to other factors, as well. The case of Cindy and Dave Dexter
provides one example. During one of our interviews, Cindy explained how at month’s
end she occasionally engages in mental figuring before paying for goods with her debit
card. If she is in doubt about the state o f her and Dave’s checking account (to which
the card it attached), Cindy simply pays for the item with one of several credit cards
210
and delays payment to a later time. Cindy relies on a fairly loose sense of the funds
she and Dave have available:
It’s usually a gut reaction on how much money I think we have

based on how much —but we don’t sit down, we don’t budget
anything. We don’t sit down and say ‘I pulled a hundred dollars out
of the account and then I pulled sixty the other day and then I
pulled. . .’ we don’t, it’s kind of just a gut reaction on ‘Wellllll, he’s
been out to lunch a few times...’ I kind of just think of the different
things that we’ve done, ‘We’ve been out to dinner this many times
and I know I used cash for this...' and I kind of just figure. I mean,
it’s just kind of a gut reaction. We never run into problems, we’ve
never bounced checks, which in a way kind of says there’s enough
money coming in this household to satisfy the way we live.
Having enough earnings to comfortably cover their monthly expenses is only part of
what allows the Dexters to rely on a loose sense of current, available funds. The fact
that the Dexters have a large number of credit cards at their disposal contributes to the
lessened urgency of their situation. Indeed, Cindy told me they had a desk drawer “full
of them," most of which had never been used. In addition, the Dexters have —and
have in the past relied upon— money invested in stocks which they can liquidate if
their credit card bills get too high. Thus, even when expenses mount the Dexters are
able to relieve the debt with other resources. Additionally, the Dexter family can rely on
the regular infusion of five thousand dollars worth of stocks received from Dave’s
grandmother at the end of each year.1 In this way, the Dexters’ vague notions about
available monies relates not only to their (relatively) high household income but also to
other class-linked factors which, in effect, complicate their financial condition.
1 According to Dave, these annual gifts are part of his grandmother’s efforts to “whittle down” her
estate in a manner that “avoid(s] the taxman.”
211
Nevertheless, the fact that the Dexters (and each upper-middle class family in
the study) even use a checking account itself represents a departure from the
experiences of working class and working class poor consumers (see Chapter Four).
Paying for items with checks, debit cards and credit cards ensures a distance between
the consumer and the money being spent in exchange for the goods. As Ritzer (1995)
has pointed out, such contemporary forms of payment for consumer goods and
services obscure the nature of the transaction, particularly from the perspective of the
consumer. The spending aspect of the exchange (i.e., the fact that the consumer is
giving something up) is removed from the transaction, even more so than is true in a
traditional cash (money) economy.2 This distance —less characteristic of the
experiences of working class and working class poor consumers— contributes to the
relative vagueness of the process by decoupling the item purchased from the money
spent.
In other upper-middle class households such as that of Peggy and George
Hopewell, it is indeed high income which allows consumers to avoid thinking about the
amount of money on hand when considering purchases. The Hopewells, for instance,
leave large amounts of cash in their (checking) account at all times. George’s
inconsistency in handing over cash withdrawal slips and other debit receipts for the
account left Peggy frustrated in her attempts to balance the checkbook. As a result,
the Hopewells elected to forego the practice of balancing the account and simply keep
a high, regular balance in it to avoid concerns over bounced checks. Peggy sees the
practice as wasteful but, along with George, utilizes it nonetheless:
2 For the classic discussion of the money economy and the alienating aspects of making
transactions using this abstraction rather than the more concrete form of exchange (i.e., barter)
see Simmel (1978). See further discussion below.
212
Nobody [balances the checking account]. We just keep a ridiculous

amount of money in the account so it’s always there. It’s stupid but
that’s what works for us. It’s absolutely crazy. We could be earning
money on that, but...
I: About how much do you keep in it? A couple, several thousand?
Ten thousand, probably, in the checking account. Is that stupid?
George was also unclear about the status of their checking account but thought it was
“probably” somewhere near the ten thousand dollar mark. Peggy’s feelings about the
wastefulness of keeping so much money in a low-interest earning account were,
arguably, tempered by the fact that the Hopewells do have the bulk of their assets in
investments and other higher yielding accounts. Thus, despite her misgivings, Peggy
was able to cope with the situation given the small proportion of their total assets “tied
up” in this fashion. The vague character of the situation was unsettling to her (i.e., not
knowing the status of the account), but she was most uneasy about what she saw as a
“stupid" practice (i.e., leaving more money than required in a low-interest bearing
account). Nevertheless, as a result of the high balance kept in it, Peggy never had to
consider its the state of the account when making purchases.
In a somewhat different vein, the vagueness that characterized the money
management aspects of acquisition for upper-middle class consumers was also
evidenced by the melding of personal and business expenses in many of these
households. Indeed, for both small business owners and for those working in
professional capacities, the acts of “buying” do not always constitute “spending."
Indeed, in each case, many of the expenses incurred by individuals on a daily basis
are (ultimately) paid for not by the individual but by the firm. Thus, when I asked Steve
213
Mandel about day-to-day purchases, he told me that because his business covers
most of his regular expenses, he generally spends very little money during the week:
I don’t really spend...! might buy lunch, but lunch comes out of the
business so, you know, it’s really not that much [that I spend].
Actually, during the week it’s almost nil because my business pays
for all my expenses, my gas, my lunch, my...everything. So I don’t
spend anything.
Thus, even though Steve is indeed making purchases, he is not, as he put it, actually
“spending" anything. The arrangements under which he works renders the relationship
between obtaining goods and spending money unclear.
Similarly, Jill Parkin remarked on the difficulty of assessing one’s financial
health when owning one’s own business.3 Jill was clear that, for her, work-related
perks of the type described by Steve Mandel muddied the waters between income and
expenses. Jill, who several years back dissolved an educational consultancy she, her
former husband and another business partner had owned and operated, spoke of the
difficulties they had in judging their financial situation given both the vicissitudes of the
business and the difficulty of calculating the value of business-related perks:
It was really hard with our business because you could never really
tell what we [as individuals] were earning because you had these
huge payments that came in periodically and these huge expenses
that were hidden. It was very hard to know how much money we
had [personally]. Plus, in your own business you have perks that
you can’t quantify too easily.
3 O f course, not all business owners are professionals (or could be considered members of the
upper-middle class). In these cases, however, the consumers in question are both professionals
and business owners. No respondents in the working class category owned businesses,
although some did support themselves partly through self-initiated work such as babysitting or
house cleaning.
214
The “perks” Jill referred to included dining out, travel (both long distance and local) and
payment of car insurance premiums. In Jill’s case, not only did “buying without
spending" take place in the form of business perks, but the (related) difficulties she
and her partner had in assessing financial health had a direct bearing on other
acquisition activity. Her husband felt uncomfortable about the uncertainty surrounding
their income and, as a result, set a tone of what Jill saw as “artificial penury” in the
household whereby spending was monitored more closely than she thought necessary.
While this did not reach the levels of attention and concern characteristic of working
class and working class poor consumers (see Chapter Four), Jill nevertheless felt that
the lack of clarity in their financial situation had an influence on the manner in which
acquisition was handled in their household.
In other families, business-related expenses distorted the picture when
individuals were expected to incur such expenses and be reimbursed by the firm at a
later date. This was the case not only for business owners but also for (other)
professionals who use personal credit cards to purchase things like airline tickets, gifts
for clients, dinners out, and taxi rides under the understanding that they will be
reimbursed for these costs. In one family, carrying such expenses on a personal credit
card regularly brought the card to its limit. This not only meant that the household’s
personal debt was difficult to assess, but also that the card was routinely rendered
inoperable, and thus, unavailable for use by the consumer.4
4 As Peggy Hopewell explained, “W e were always over our maximum because of his airline
tickets and we couldn’t use it.” Though Peggy certainly could have applied for and received
another card to use for her own household expenses, she was not inclined to do so, unwilling to
go to the trouble of setting up a new account. Eventually, her husband’s firm issued employees
company cards, thus eliminating the need for reimbursement.
215
These examples demonstrate the imprecise character of the mental processes
in which upper-middle class consumers engage in their attempts to access market
goods. Though centered on issues of money management (rather than making
purchases, per se) such mental calculations (or lack thereof) are integral to acquisition.
Upper-middle class consumers are spared the type of detailed money calculations
prevalent among the working classes.
Destination Unknown
In contrast to the situation in working class and working class poor families,
there was little talk of saving money for specific goods among upper-middle class
respondents. Saving took place more under less purposefully-directed terms in these
households. A number of respondents routinely put aside money into savings accounts
or invested money in stocks and mutual funds, but rarely did they earmark savings for
the purchase of a particular good. In some measure, savings were sometimes seen as
contributing to an accumulation o f funds that would eventually go toward major,
irregular household expenses (e.g., home renovations, decorating, buying a car) but
these were vague notions often largely unrecognizable to these consumers.
Lori Mandel, for example, spoke about how she sometimes delays spending
large amounts of money on goods and services. Though she does not consciously
save or earmark the funds, she thinks that somewhere in the back of her mind she is
preparing for “the next thing:"
See, I procrastinate. Maybe in one sense it’s psychological. See,

you never know what goes on. Underlying, I’m saving money. Like
we did landscaping, so we plopped a lot down, we got the car...We
first did the landscaping, whatever, about a month ago, and now I’ve
been saving up and so now we’ll do the next thing, you know.
216
Another upper-middle class respondent, Peggy Hopewell spoke of similar delays in
spending. She told me about how her husband George discourages her from making
curtains for their home, preferring that she spend the money for custom-made drapes
rather than cope with the mess and disorder that would accompany taking care of the
job herself. She has been putting off setting an appointment for the decorating
consultant to come to the house:
I think because of the money I have long lag times between these
big outlays of money to where I have to get, you know, psyched-up
mentally to just plunk down the cash again.
In these instances, Peggy and Lori have not been saving purposively, with a specific
purchase in mind. With respect to Lori, in particular, her saving is a means of
accumulation in recognition that a significant amount of money has recently been
spent. After a while when she and Steve have accumulated “a good b if of money she
will do something else, such as additional home renovations. Though Lori sees the
time crunch that she and Steve live and work under as one factor in her
procrastination, she believes there is more to her delaying tactics:
It’s the time but I think underlying I'm also —obviously I can't do
anything. I mean, cause it’s a lot of money each time and it’s not
like we have a huge amount of money, but because we don’t spend
it in all, like crazy, I, you know, I save and then we do something.
Again, Lori’s language differs from that of working class and working class poor
respondents. She has only a vague notion that the money she is putting aside has an
ultimate destination: she saves for “something” or “the next thing."
In addition to these vague, object-oriented saving practices, it should be noted
that some upper-middle class families did save money in anticipation of even more
217
indeterminate future-oriented expenses. Indeed, as I discuss further below, things like
retirement or savings for children’s college educations were a concern for many of
these consumers. Though not all acted on these concerns in the form of savings, for
those who did, such acts of saving also generally lacked the clarity evident in working
class and working class poor experiences. For example, for Tom Lawton (upper-
middle class, married, father of four), saving had a decidedly fuzzy air about it.
Well, I’m putting more money away for retirement, you know, saving
a lot, a certain percentage of my income and putting it into stocks or
bonds or whatever for the future or whatever necessities that come
up. (emphasis mine)
Once again, the words used by the respondent are telling. Tom is saving for “whatever
necessities" that should arise. He has some sense of what those things might include
—repairs to their steeply pitched driveway, remodelling the kitchen, sending their four
children to private colleges, family vacations in Bermuda— but they are generally
distant and, relatedly, imprecise goals for the funds. Some may never come to pass;
others may be substituted by something else (e.g., buying a vacation home instead of
paying for singular trips). Indeed, college itself, the most frequently raised, future-
oriented expense about which upper-middle class parents are concerned, represents a
vague and amorphous target. Which school(s) will the child(ren) attend? Will it be an
expensive private school or will they opt for a state institution? How much will it cost by
then? Might the child not get that soccer scholarship? How much will I (or my spouse
and I) be earning at that time? While there is little question in these parents’ minds that
their children will attend college, the form of that attendance and its associated costs
are quite indeterminate. As a result, the thought processes associated with saving
toward such expenses are themselves indeterminate.
218
On a final note, it is worth pointing out that while for working class and working
class poor consumers the acts of saving tend to be closely held and apparent (e.g.,
placing money in a specially designated envelope over a few weeks’ time) for upper-
middle class individuals, saving tends to involve the more remote activity of investing.
It involves brokers and money managers and other-manipulated funds about which
these individuals generally maintain only superficial knowledge. It is not something that
they individually orchestrate.5 Use of such intermediaries means that these consumers
generally have only a vague sense of where the money is invested and what,
precisely, it is doing at any given time. With respect to work-related investment
accounts, once an initial percentage of income has been agreed upon as the
employee’s regular contribution, these monies are automatically withdrawn from the
employee’s earnings prior to issuance of the paycheck, removing these individuals
even further from the process. Cindy Dexter (upper-middle class, married, mother of
three), for example, had only a vague sense of the investments her firm made on her
behalf as part of her benefits package. She told me about the 401k account she has
through work, but was unsure of how much comes out of her check for it and how
much is presently in the account. She had even less information about her husband’s
holdings:
I: And do you know about how much you have put into the account
each pay period?
Mine is five [pause] five percent? Four percent? But I’m gonna up
that again in January. Urn, we get a report every six months. But I
don’t know how much [my husband’s] is. My company, I’m fully
5 Three of the six upper-middle class families in the study invest their money through personal
brokers and/or money managers. One, who works in the field of financial analysis handles most
of the household’s investments himself. In each household in this category, work-related mutual
funds or 401 k accounts are held.
219
vested in my company and they invest somewhere around three or

four percent.
I: Do you know about how much is in that account then, the 401 k?
Mine [pause]? Almost nine thousand dollars? I think. Something like

that. But [my husband’s] isn’t a 401k. It’s [pause] I don’t know what
it is.
Again, we see how the types of clear and uncluttered thinking evident for the working
class and working class poor are replaced by murky calculations and unknown figures
in the lives of upper-middle class consumers. That from which these consumers
escape in terms of specific knowledge about day to day purchasing is complemented
and exacerbated in other aspects of money management.
Indeterminacy and Financial Setbacks
The somewhat unique experiences of one family, the Tallingers, in coping with
financial difficulties provide a further, in some ways unique opportunity to consider the
fuzzy nature of upper-middle class consumers’ practices o f acquisition. Don and
Louise Tallinger earn a combined income of about $175,000 a year. Along with their
with their three sons, Garrett, eleven, Casey, eight, and Chris, five the Tallingers live in
a four-bedroom ranch home in a quiet section of Sylvan Township. There is a
basketball hoop in the driveway, an in-ground pool in the backyard, and a soccer goal
on the front lawn. The family’s friendly sheep dog is named Haley.
During separate interviews with Don and Louise, each told me about the
financial difficulties they had experienced in recent years. The advertising and public
relations firm for which both had been working was not consistently able to meet its
payroll expenses during the prior three years. The firm continued to pay clerical
personnel and other junior staff members but did not issue regular paychecks to
220
executive officers, including Don and Louise. At one point, the Tallingers went over six
weeks without receiving any pay from the firm.6
With, at times, no (earned) income coming into the household, the Tallingers
had to tap other resources to meet their expenses. Their small amount of savings did
not last long and Don and Louise soon liquidated their mutual funds fa few thousand
dollars" worth) in order to pay the bills. In addition, the Tallingers began to rely
increasingly on their credit cards, unsure when incoming cash would be available next.
The inability of Don and Louise to meet financial obligations, particularly with respect to
mortgage and car payments meant that large penalty fees (“several thousand dollars”)
were attached to their mounting debt.7 As the initial period of financial uncertainty
continued, the Tallingers began to borrow money from Louise’s mother (in increments
of $2,000) in order to keep afloat.
Don and Louise were highly distressed about their situation. Though they
ultimately did meet their obligations, this did not occur without a great deal of anguish
over their inability to keep up with expenses. Louise became increasingly consumed
with worry about overdue notices, and Don spent more than a few nights tossing and
turning in bed. Thus, although the Tallingers were able to meet their expenses, they
experienced significant distress in the process.
The Tallingers’ situation was murky in two principal ways. One, of course, had
to do with the source of the problem. On the one hand it was clear that the Tallingers’
6 I received conflicting accounts from Don and Louise Tallinger on the precise number of
consecutive weeks they sustained without paychecks. Louise reported that the longest period
without either receiving pay was “almost six weeks” while Don reported that it was two months.
With no way of knowing which (if either) is accurate, the “over six weeks" figure I report in the
text is meant to accommodate both Don and Louise’s answers to my query.
7 The Talligners held a “balloon” mortgage that assesses higher penalties for late payments than
other types of mortgages.
221
difficulties stemmed from those of their firm, namely its inability to consistently pay
their salaries. The situation at the firm was such that Don and Louise found it difficult
to decide what, if anything to do. Though small, their firm had operated for over twenty-
five years which, to them, seemed to provide evidence that its long-term viability was
reasonably secure. As the principal officer of the firm made personnel changes and
reduced wasteful spending, Don and Louise were cautiously optimistic that things were
turning around. Don made only casual efforts at finding another position:
I certainly started thinking about it. I didn’t look that actively because
despite all the pressures there was always either enough light at the
end of the tunnel, at least for a short time, or I was stubborn enough
about things that I didn’t want to do. I didn’t want to leave just to
take another job that I knew I was gonna leave in another year
because I didn’t like it.
Both Don and Louise stayed with the firm until j'ust before my interviews with the
Tallingers. At that point, Louise resigned, principally in an effort to redirect her career.
But the vague character of the Tallingers’ financial difficulties went beyond
those of an uncertain future at Don and Louise’s current place of work. Problems of
income brought to the fore the precarious financial footing on which these consumers
stood. Faced with mounting debt, the couple had to come to terms with the fact that
their financial security was more unstable than they had recognized. While working
class and working class poor families were keenly aware of their precarious financial
situation, like other upper-middle class families, the Tallingers had not considered
themselves to be as vulnerable as they now felt. In some respects, they were little
better off than working class families in terms of the thinness of their financial cushion.
The fact that they did not have significant savings or assets to which to readily turn,
placed them in the uncomfortable position of relying on credit cards and having to turn
222
to Louise’s mother for assistance. Importantly, however, they were able to tap these
options —unavailable to many working class and working class poor consumers— and
even left a few stones unturned.
Indeed, the Tallingers were ambivalent about both the severity of the problem
and what, if anything, their own role should be in correcting the situation. Despite their
difficulties in covering expenses, the Tallingers’ lifestyle remained largely unchanged
throughout this period. Although some types of purchasing were indeed put on hold
(e.g., remodelling the kitchen and bathroom; some [but not all] discretionary clothing
purchases for Don and Louise) the severity of their situation was, in large measure,
masked by their continued access to various financial resources (e.g., credit cards).
They could, if need be, buy an outfit for a dinner party or birthday presents for the kids.
Indeed, the Tallingers children were, as far as Don and Louise knew, completely
unaware of their family’s predicament. None of their extra-curricular activities were
curtailed and Don and Louise did not share information about their financial difficulties
with the children. In the midst of these difficulties, the family took a long weekend trip
to attend a soccer tournament in which Garrett, their eldest, was participating. The
Tallingers stayed in a motel and ate all of their meals out during this mini-vacation. To
be sure, tentative plans for a longer family trip to DisneyWorld were, indeed, put off,
but few aspects of the Tallingers’ everyday lives were varied. Leisure activities
including family membership at a country club with fees of over $700 per month went
unchanged.
Thus, as disconcerting as these financial difficulties were for the Tallingers,
Don and Louise were not confronted with a clear, unmistakable decline in their
standard of living. This was linked to their class position in a number of ways. For one,
223
the Tallingers had, over the years, accumulated a stock of material goods which were
more than adequate to sustain them during this period. Louise’s wardrobe for work, for
example, consisted of classic, well-made suits and dresses that did not need to be
replaced. Other items like furnishings or bedding of good quality or recreational
amenities (e.g., in-ground pool; video game equipment, a computer) were also on-
hand and accessible, even if new items were not being purchased. “Laying low” on
such purchasing for a relatively short period did not significantly alter the Tallingers'
day-to-day life.
Moreover, there was significant wiggle room in terms of what Don and Louise
might do to cope with the situation. The Tallingers did not, for example, pursue other
options available to them such as securing a second mortgage on their home. Nor did
they follow through on Louise’s fleeting thoughts about selling a family heirloom or the
baby grand piano she had inherited. Louise’s logic in refraining from such moves was
indicative of her ambivalence about the situation:
I mean, I threatened to, I said 'God, do i have to sell the piano

because of operating...?’ I mean, to me if I was going to make that
kind of sacrifice it was [going] to be for something that was going to
have lasting [short pause] not to pay bills. I have a family piece of
jewelry that’s, uh, that I would never be able to replace if I sold. I
mean, it’s not, it’s special to me because it’s family. It’s also
gorgeous, but I said ‘I’m not going to sell this’ and again Trn going
to sell this for operating expenses as opposed to college?’ I mean,
I’d sell it for college but I’m not going to sell it to pay the mortgage,
urn, or buy groceries.
Here, Louise's comments indicate not only that the Tallingers had options available to
them which they did not pursue, but also suggests a sense that problems with paying
regular, monthly expenses were viewed as, in some measure, incomprehensible.
Louise, in particular, had an air of incredulity regarding their plight. Not accustomed to
224
having to think about such clear, near-term consumption issues, Louise was taken
aback when confronted with difficulties meeting everyday expenses. In this way, the
Tallingers’ class position both provided them with greater options in coping with
financial difficulties than working class and working class poor families (e.g., selling
major assets) and, at the same time, encouraged selective employment of those
strategies. Louise and Don could have sold (physical) assets for at least some of the
cash they needed, but Louise, in particular, did not view regular, monthly bills as an
appropriate destination for such funds. Louise’s description of events highlighted their
indecisiveness at this time:
I: And how did you...in your daily life were there things that you did,
that you were able to do to cut back?
Well, we didn’t go on vacation [to DisneyWorid]. Urn, we considered

dropping out of the [country] club. I mean, we were looking at ways
to cut our own expenses. But there again, that is —Don’s sanity is
playing golf and for him not to be able to do th a t... [voice trails off\.
And if we dropped out and then things got better and we rejoined
we’d have to pay a twenty-five thousand dollar initiation fee, so it
doesn’t make sense to do that. You just have to think things are
going to get better. So, uh, but, yeah we cut back. I can’t think of
anything in particular. Nothing drastic other than driving an eight
year-old car that is going to die soon. Of course, then we had an
accident and we had to replace one of the cars because the car was
totalled. You know, just eat more hamburgers as opposed to roast,
that type of thing, (emphasis mine)
I: Did you do that?
Oh, yeah. Tned to change the things that —although to me, once
again, the kids’ health. I mean, we still had healthy meals.
Thus, even under significant financial pressure, the contribution of particular expenses
—from “healthy” foods to a country club membership— to their overall financial
problems were difficult for the Tallingers to see. Theirs were not simple zero-sum
225
calculations where the effects of particular purchases were apparent to them. The
Tallingers were accustomed to living with a rather fluid sense of financial matters
whereby there always seemed to be enough money to cover purchases; larger,
irregularly purchased goods could be put on the credit card and paid off —or, mostly
paid off— in the coming months. While they had some nagging sense that they were
not putting enough money away in investments or savings, they did not act to alter that
situation.
It is difficult to imagine any of the working class or working class poor families
in the study operating in a similar fashion when confronted with such a financial
setback. As noted in Chapter Three, “accidents" whereby income is (temporarily)
decreased and/or expenses are (temporarily) increased are a “normal" and integral
part of acquisition activity in those households. In the Yanelli family, missing just one
week of work, coupled with a series of “extra" expenses was enough to immediately
and notably alter the family’s day-to-day acquisition activities in quite specific and,
borrowing Louise Tallinger’s words, one might say, “drastic" ways (e.g., not being able
to buy ice slushies on a hot summer day). While one might argue that the Tallingers’
situation called for more drastic action than Don and Louise were prepared to take
(e.g., dropping their country club membership) the fact that they were able to get by
without instituting such changes speaks to the fluid and indeterminate character of
their everyday acquisition lives.
Measuring Tomorrow in Years: Issues of Time

and the Concerns of Upper-middle Class Consumers
In Chapter Four, I showed how the concerns of working class and working
class poor consumers are oriented toward the current period. With limited financial
226
resources on which to rely, most of the encounters between these consumers and
commodity markets are directed toward meeting current-time needs. Theirs are a
largely day-by-day, week-by-week existences.
The picture that emerges for upper-middle class consumers, however, is
markedly different. Concerns about meeting everyday, current-time needs or even
wants were not prominent in upper-middle class households. Indeed, as noted in
Chapter Five, most respondents in this group felt that there was little in the way of
material goods that they wanted and did not have. Immediate-term consumption was
largely satisfied in these households. In the case of the Mandels, for example,
generally able to satisfy his needs and wants, Steve had difficulty identifying “little
splurges" or ways in which he treats himself:
I think I’m kind of boring when it comes to something like splurging.

See, I have everything that I really need or actually, really want.
There’s only a couple of things that I really want, but at this time it’s
not right to get it . . . I’m lucky enough that I have the luxury to get
what I want all the, it’s not like I have to hold back and wait to get a
pair or sneakers or a treadmill or some other, a lawnmower or
something that I have to save for or have to wait to get... if we want
it, then I have the luxury that I can go out and get it.
The items that Steve viewed as desirable but “at this time...not right to g e f included a
vacation home and a large-screen television. Steve did not see either item as out of
reach, but simply “not important” enough to purchase at this time. His decision to
forego such purchases was, in his view, a matter of choice (for further discussion see
Chapter Five).
Of course, not every upper-middle class respondent was altogether satisfied
with their present situation with regards to consumer goods. Some were less
comfortable with their standard of living. In contrast to the Mandels, Louise and Don
227
Tallinger evidenced mixed feelings about their position.8 On the one hand, both Don
and Louise felt that they had most of the material goods that were important to them.
Don, in particular, did not feel hampered in his ability to exact market goods either for
himself or for his family. Louise’s feelings in this regard, however, were more
tempered. She explained it this way:
There’s things that I certainly want but there are very few things that
I actually need. I mean, you don’t need to have curtains on your
windows. But the sun was coming in and it was fading our slip
covers so we decided to put hues up there...l mean, basically, we’ve
gotten enough through the years so we have the basics and the
other part is just urn, I don’t know, how much material improving
upon the basics [can you do]? You know, sort of Maslow’s hierarchy
of needs. We’re sort of at self-actualization in many ways.
Louise explained how most of the material goods that she desires have to do with
“self-esteem.” From her perspective, the rug which covers the Tallingers’ living room
floor is certainly “functional” but “not the one that I would prefer." A night at a friend’s
home with a large, formal dining room and high ceilings sometimes leaves Louise
feeling badly about her and Don’s four-bedroom ranch home. On one occasion, Louise
failed to reciprocate a dinner invitation because she felt uneasy about the condition of
her and Don's house. The baby grand piano in the Tallingers’ living room and the in-
ground pool in the backyard somehow fail to measure up in comparison to the elegant
spaces others have created. Indeed, being a member of the upper-middle class does
not mean that all current-time consumption desires are fulfilled.
Nevertheless, meeting current-time consumption needs and wants do not
represent ever-present looming concerns for these consumers as was the case with
8 These comments made by Louise regarded her situation at the time of our interview (i.e., years
after the temporary financial setback described in the previous section).
228
the working class and the working class poor. Despite Louise’s misgivings, the things
that preoccupy her as a consumer are not the material goods with which she and her
family surround themselves today. Louise's wardrobe suits her fine. She buys things
like lobsters and leg of lamb for family dinners, not as a matter of course but with
regularity, nonetheless. Louise does not think twice about spending over $300 on
birthday gifts for her sons. Indeed, for his twelfth birthday Louise bought Garrett a
soccer goal ($100), a sports bag ($60), compact discs ($31.03), a (requested) down
comforter ($79), a comforter cover ($44.95), and sox (seven pairs) and gloves (one
pair) from the Gap ($51.49). For both Louise and Don the financial issues with which
they are primarily concerned are not those that regard needs or wants of today.
Instead, like other upper-middle class families, the Tallingers’ concerns regard their
ability to pay for expenses years into the future. The “tomorrow” about which the
Tallingers are worried is more than a paycheck away.
For example, when I asked Louise to tell me about what she considered to be a
“comfortable, worry-free standard of living" her focus of attention was unmistakably
future-directed. As Louise put it:
I’d be worry-free if I knew that my kids’ college education was taken

care of.
Louise does not have just any college education in mind for her three sons. She and
Don both graduated from an Ivy League university and she expects her children to
attend a private institution of similar caliber:
I: And what kind o f college education do you envision for them?
Ivy League, truth to tell. Stanford, MIT, you know, that major name
recognition institution. It could be an Amherst, a fine liberal arts
229
institution, too [giggle]. But I see, I don't see Sylvan County

Community College.
Don and Louise are well aware of the cost of four years of private, higher education. At
present prices, tuition and fees at such schools exceed $30,000 per year and are
rapidly increasing (Gose 1999). With three children, the Tallingers are in all likelihood
looking forward to a total bill of not less than $360,000. Other, future-oriented
expenses were also on Louise’s mind:
Well, it would be nice to have our retirement sort of taken care of,
too. Or to have some cushion, to know about taking care of elderly
parents, mothers. I would like to be able to know that we could
contribute in some way to that.
Don echoed Louise’s concerns about the future. As he compared his situation to that
of others in his social circle, he rejected the idea that he envies others for the things
they have. He thought his feelings were better characterized as aspirations.
[There are] things that I aspire to...But again, not so much as

specific material things. I aspire to have financial security we don’t
now have. That’s really what I would like.
Later, Don clarified his position.
We need more savings for future college educations and for

retirement. I mean, those are the highest priorities.
Hence, Don and Louise’s concerns had to do not with immediate consumption issues,
but with what were largely imprecise spending considerations of the distant future.
Other upper-middle class respondents expressed similar sentiments. When I
asked Lori Mandel about current spending concerns her answer was directed at future-
230
oriented issues. As with Don and Louise Tallinger, paying for her children’s college
educations is the prominent issue for Lori, while meeting today’s expenses is of little
concern.
I: Are there things that you’d like to have more money for? Is that
something you think about?
I mean, I guess savings. Just to have it [laughtei]. I mean, really.

Materially, you’re talking, like stuff to buy?
I: That or are there other things on your mind that way?
Well, you know, just for like, security. To have more money for
when you retire or [to] retire earlier. I mean, who wouldn’t? But not
really for material things. It’s more like money for college, stuff like
that. Saving for the future.
Although “the future” includes more than simply saving for her children’s college
educations, this is where Lori’s concerns have most pointedly laid:
College has been a big concern ‘cause, you know, when we first
were moving, we must have moved three times in three years, so
when you think of all that settlement money we were spending and
we hadn’t saved much. But now we’re saving for the kids, putting
money away every month and we feel a lot better. We just did that
like last year. So that is a big and important thing for us.
I: And you say that is something you were concerned about?
Oh yeah. We worried about it from day one. Yeah, we felt really

badly. But again, we bought the business and we moved three
times. I mean, so it was a lot of money going out to do that. So, but
I feel much better now that we’re doing it.
Thus, upper-middle class consumers like the Tallingers and the Mandels do have
worries and concerns about money. Their concerns, however, are of a different
character than those of the working class and working class poor. None of the upper-
middle class respondents reported experiencing worry, panic, or even pointed
231
consideration and strategizing with regards to meeting current-time consumption
needs and wants.9 In this way, the issues with which these upper-middle class
consumers are grappling differ from those of the working class and working class poor.
For those respondents, concerns about the distant future were necessarily secondary
to those of the present. Indeed, worries over having money for this week’s groceries,
Christmas presents, or this month’s car payment tend to crowd out more distant
issues.10 For working class respondent Mary Ellen Gaskel, “comfortable” living was
defined not in terms of “having college expenses taken care o f as was true of Louise
Tallinger, but rather being able to keep up with bills and have $20 or $30 to spare at
the end of the pay period. By contrast, upper-middle class consumers like the
Tallingers worried less (or not at all) about day-to-day needs and more about the “big
picture.” As a result, the timeframe in which upper-middle class consumers’ thoughts
were directed was significantly broader than that of the working class and the working
class poor.
In some measure, issues of future concern did affect spending habits of today
in upper-middle class households. Several respondents in this group spoke of a
general thriftiness on their part as linked to concerns about future-oriented expenses.
Lori Mandel, for example, recognized the savings she and her husband Steve accrue
^ h e exception to this, of course, is the Tallingers’ unique period of financial setback described
above. As noted in the discussion, even under such circumstances, much about the Tallingers'
day-to-day acquisition activities went unchanged.
10 It should be noted that working class and working class poor respondents were by no means
wholly unconcerned about the future. In the Yanelli family, for example, during the period of data
collection, Linda requested that her employer put her “on the books” after years of working
without paying taxes. Despite the significant drop in her take-home earnings that resulted from
the change, Linda requested this change specifically so that she could begin making
contributions to the Social Security fund. My point is not that working class consumers did not
give consideration to issues of the future, but rather that those concerns were far less central to
their thinking than the more immediate and pressing matters of current-time consumption.
232
by not going out to dinner as money that makes it possible for them to afford to save
toward future expenses. Although Lori does not see her habits in zero-sum sacrificial
terms, she noted that the selected thriftiness she and Steve employ allows them to
save money for the future:
We’re not into wasting money. Like, to us it’s not important like to
go out to dinner and spend a hundred dollars, I don’t care if I have
it. I think it’s the biggest waste of money and so does my husband,
so.
I: Can you tell me about that? How that’s a waste of money?
To spend a hundred dollars to eat, it’s just [giggle] it’s not important
to us. I mean, in a sense we’re cheap in those kind of ways. We
don’t not go out because we don’t want to pay it but we prefer not, I
mean... it’s not important to us to do it. And it does save us money
but that’s not why we’re not going.
I: Not in order to save money but...
Right. But it does save money. You know, people that go out every
Friday and Saturday night, pay the babysitter, go out, I mean, that’s
to us, t’s not important and we don’t do it. But again, we don’t not do
things because we can’t afford it... But thank God we don’t do these
things. I mean. I’d rather put money away for my kids than go out to
eat. You know, obviously that is not why we don’t go, as I said but, I
mean, I’d rather put that money there.
As with Lori, the day-to-day acquisition practices of most upper-middle class
consumers were themselves of little concern and only vaguely linked to that which
concerned them (i.e., future costs).
In a few instances, however, respondents did forge direct associations between
spending habits of today and expenses of tomorrow. Peggy Hopewell, for example,
referred to concerns about looming college expenses as preventing her from using an
233
inheritance windfall to buy a new vehicle. Peggy currently drives a 1989 Chevrolet
station wagon.11
I have come to realize that my life would be more uptick [snaps her
fingers] if I was driving around in a comfortable car because I live in
that stupid thing and I thought today you know, ‘I don't know why I
don't just go out and buy [a Suburban] for myself.’ It would make my
life happier. [All the kids] would be in nice seats, nobody would be
on top —Kenneth is six feet tall. I mean, we are too crowded in that
car. What about when the rest of them get big? Jean is five three.
You know, they're getting to be big. And I had that thought this
morning that if I had —of course, I just got sent $17,000 from my
dad's estate and you know I gave it to George [to invest] [frowns].
Now I could go out and buy myself a Suburban but I just gave it to
George because I thought, ‘Well you know we might need this for
college.’ That's a thought, that's the thing I think that that pressures
me to save more than anything is that I worry about their education
and I worry about spending money because of that more than
anything.
As Peggy’s experience indicates, despite the fact that it is issues of tomorrow that are
of concern to upper-middle class consumers those matters can indeed color today’s
acquisition practices. Despite having a large portion of the money in hand for buying
the Suburban, Peggy decided against it. She knows why she does not “just go out and
buy a Suburban” —it is because she has five children whom she unquestionably
expects to put through college.
Still, it was rare for upper-middle class consumers to evidence a clear
connection between the things they worry, think about, or attempt to plan for as
consumers and their practices of acquisition. By and large, the everyday actions of
these consumers did not serve as regular markers of their situations. Because the
11 In making these comments, Peggy was responding to a scenario I had presented to her. I
asked her what she would do if I gave her $2000 which she had to spend. She began her
response (as did many upper-middle class respondents) by saying that $2000 was not a
sufficient sum of money with which to do anything of significance.
234
issues of concern were large, indeterminate and future-oriented, the effects of specific
acquisition practices of today on the ability of individuals to meet those costs were both
uncertain and, relatedly, difficult to see. This was unmistakable in one of my interviews
with Jill Parkin (freelance consultant, divorced, mother of one). As we spoke about
price considerations in everyday shopping, Jill was quite clear that her financial
concerns neither began nor ended at the supermarket. Indeed, Jill displayed a
measure of frustration, even annoyance with my questions about accomplishing
current-period acquisition tasks (e.g., buying clothing, getting food, etc.) and related
budgetary issues. She indicated that such matters held little meaning for her. Her
words were telling:
I don’t organize my thoughts about what’s affordable, not affordable,

affordable, not affordable. Although as I go about my day, that’s
how I spend money...l do act on it day to day. I mean, you can’t go
to the market, even the market and not act on it. Either you are or
you aren’t gonna buy sparkling cider, you know. And some days I
buy it and some days I don’t. But I don’t organize my mental map
around it. I just, my real issues are not [pause and then a sigh], I
have real financial issues. I have got to find a way to grow old,
okay? And I’ve got to find a way to get my daughter to college and
I’ve got to find a way to pay for the next three years [of private high
school]. Those are my issues.
In some ways, Jill’s sense of frustration reflected her particular situation. Having
resigned under pressure from a high-powered and well-paid administrative post, Jill
had been working only sporadically as a freelance consultant for the past two years.12
Through a combination of consulting work earnings, income from various investments
(including full-ownership of her income-generating residence) and child support
payments from her former husband, Jill was by all means able to “keep afloat."
12 At the time of her resignation, Jill was earning $80,000 per year at her Job.
235
Nevertheless she was uncertain about her ability to meet her share of the large
discrete expenses associated with her daughter’s education. She was also beginning
to worry about retirement.
Although Jill’s frustration with my queries was, it seemed, rooted in her
particular situation, her indication that issues of material goods’ acquisition and
current-era spending were of little consequence to those financial issues which
concerned her was true of upper-middle class respondents more generally. Those
issues would not be addressed by placing ten dollars a week in an envelope, clipping
coupons, or alternating the week’s during which she purchased her children’s
Christmas presents. For Jill and other upper-middle class respondents, broader, more
far-reaching measures would be called for in order to address her concerns. A
different type of mindset was in order, one that involved thinking about and planning
for the amorphous “big picture.”
It should be noted that concerns about funding children’s educations and one’s
retirement years were not central to all upper-middle class consumers. Others in the
study were more relaxed about such issues, either thinking that these expenses were
a long way off or anticipating future boosts to their savings (e.g., inheritance prospects,
work-related investments). And of course, such expenses were closer in coming due in
some families than others. But when upper-middle class respondents did express
concerns about their financial plight, it was these types of issues around which their
preoccupations focused. To use Jill Parkin’s term, the “mental map” to which these
consumers refer in navigating their way through life is not a finely detailed one. For
these individuals, routine procurement of everyday goods is largely taken for granted.
236
Because the items that engage their attention involve sums of money that dwarf both
their annual incomes and expenditures, the everyday purchase of mass market
consumer goods is seen as (and in many ways, in fact, is) only weakly related to these
lifecourse issues. As a result, their thinking as consumers tends to be broader,
focused on a more expansive view than that referred to by the working class and
working class poor.
In this chapter, I have shown how the mental and to some extent, emotional
activities in which upper-middle class consumers engage in their attempts to access
market goods are marked by a highly vague character. In addition, my findings indicate
that a future- rather than current-time orientation marks the experiences of these
consumers, particularly with regards to the thinking, planning and worrying aspects of
spending. This contrasts in significant ways from the findings presented in Chapter
Four for the working class and working class poor. Several points can be made about
the orientations I have described.
That upper-middle class consumers face less clear (and, relatedly, future-
oriented) situations in their mental calculations with regards spending than is true of
the working class and working class poor is indisputable. Whether or not such a
situation can be characterized as an advantage or privilege of class is less apparent.
Indeed, for upper-middle class consumers generally, the vague character of these
consumers’ financial situations may create problems for them as they are able to
access market goods under a clouded sense that they “earn a good living” and a
related fog of entitlement. Indeed, the culture of upper-middle class life, both in terms
of upbringing and its present realities tells these consumers that they are able to afford
237
a certain level of material comfort. Free from the need to constantly account for and
note the destination of monies, upper-middle class consumers may not see the
relationship between their buying patterns and their overall financial well-being. While
on the one hand, this may provide relief from the day-to-day concerns of the working
class and working class poor and, as others have suggested on similar issues (Feagin
1991) “free-up” mental space to be otherwise expended, it can also create problems of
overspending. Perhaps Don and Louise Tallinger should be making more of a
connection between (consumption) spending and their overall financial ill-health. While
small changes to their lifestyle like brown-bagging their lunch rather than ordering
take-out may not represent the difference between a comfortable retirement and
struggling in later life, other aspects of spending, when considered in total could very
well make a difference. Indeed, studies of “the millionaire next door" (Stanley 1998)
have suggested that it such small, everyday expenditures matter. In short, that upper-
middle class consumers face murky situations in terms of spending means that they
are highly vulnerable to spending beyond their limits. As Ritzer (1995) (following in the
tradition of Simmel) has pointed out, particularly with respect to credit card use,
abstraction and the lack of clear connections in spending can easily lead to financial
distress. While such distress was not evident for most of the upper-middle class
families in this study, research on personal bankruptcies and other indicators of
financial troubles have found increased incidences of financial difficulties among
similarly situation middle class consumers (Sullivan, Warren and Westbrook 1997).
At the same time, however, there can be little question that upper-middle class
consumers are better able to recover from financial setbacks or simply overspending
than the working class and working class poor. In the present study, only one upper-
238
middle class family, the Dexters held significant credit card debt (see Table 2.13) and
both Cindy and Dave felt confident that they could and would get that under control.
Indeed, they had access to the resources necessary to do so. By contrast, working
class and working class poor consumers who rely on abstract money forms such as
credit cards are far more likely to fall into situations of severe financial hardship. In the
present study, it was common for working class and working class poor respondents to
have had significant problems meeting credit card payments. Half of the families in
those categories are either currently or have in the recent past been denied access to
credit (including access to mortgage funding) because of defaults on mortgage and
credit card payments and other bills. Thus, while the prevalence of imprecise and
vague relationships in acquisition/money matters is not wholly restricted to the upper-
middle class, the ability of those consumers to cope with such indeterminacy is
greater. Again, class-linked resources including high and reliable earning capacities as
well as access to varied sources of funds provide a far more forgiving cushion for the
upper-middle class than is true of the working class and working class poor.
All this escapes both those making “classless consumption” arguments (Clark
and Lipset 1991; Pakulski and Waters 1996) with their emphasis on goods as well as
Bourdieu (1984) with his failure to consider acquisition practices. Bourdieu sees only
that the upper-middle class are able to think abstractly and the ways this ensures
access to prestigious academic institutions (but see Lamont 1992 on this as unique to
French society). I am not suggesting that that is not important to class reproduction —
it most certainly is— but something else is going on here that regards financial health
and viability. There are signs that lack of clarity in the sphere of acquisition may be
detrimental to one’s financial health.
239
Still, this research shows that ways of thinking and feeling as regard processes
of acquisition do differ by class. Again, it is the character of these processes that differ.
Upper-middle class consumers feel guilty about the things they do not do for their
children as do the working class and working class poor. For the upper-middle class it
is “feeling badly” with each year that goes by without strides having been made toward
accumulating the necessary funds for college; for the working class it is about not
getting their child the latest fashions for their Fall wardrobe. For the upper-middle class
(focused on educational investments) the stakes are, perhaps, higher. A college
education is a direct means by which parents pass on class privilege to their children
and not having the funds to send their child to the school of their choice could have
long-term consequences. But the activities of preparing for college (or retirement)
differ from those associated with accessing this season’s back-to-school wardrobe.
Whereas working class parents make regular, small-scale trade-offs to meet such
expenses, comparable activities directed toward what are essentially abstract, certainly
future-oriented expenses in upper-middle class households tend to be far more
discrete and infrequent. Putting off things like summer trips to Europe or the
installation of a deck in the backyard are not woven into the fabric of everyday life as
are the ever-present zero-sum calculations of the working classes. Moreover, feelings
of guilt and worry over college expenses do not appear to pepper everyday life in a
consistent way as is true for the working class and working class poor and their
concerns. For those parents, it is every day, every week that the types of thinking and
feeling I have described are unmistakably confronted. Upper-middle class consumers
are freer to escape from and think beyond such mental calculations and emotional
conflicts.
240
CHAPTER 7
SOCIO-CULTURAL RESOURCES IN ACQUISITION PROCESSES
Introduction
Throughout this dissertation I have emphasized the importance of financial
resources to the influence of class on processes of acquisition. The centrality of these
resources in shaping the content and character of consumers’ experiences was
indisputable. Nevertheless, I do not wish to suggest that that the influence of class in
this regard is wholly dependent upon the relationship between class and financial
resources. As Bourdieu (1984) has forcefully argued, while material conditions are
fundamental to a class condition and as such are highly influential of the practices of
individuals, these resources are mediated by cultural forces that may be entirely (or at
least partly) distinct from the economics of class. Cultural capital (1984;1987), in
particular, regards socio-cultural resources that arise from socialization within class
groups, but are not directly linked to financial matters. Such resources provide
individuals with tools on which to rely in navigating interactions in both formal (e.g.,
schools) and informal settings (e.g., dinner parties). Bourdieu suggests that
differences in class-linked socio-cultural resources form the heart of class distinctions
in consumption, in general, and taste, in particular, and are central to social
reproduction.
In this chapter I present findings from the dissertation research which point to
the influence of non-financial aspects of class on class-linked consumer behavior. In
particular, I show how socio-cultural resources (constituting what Bourdieu calls
cultural capital) influence acquisition processes. To do so, I focus on one category of
241
acquisition made by respondents in the study: electronic merchandise. I include in this
category both audio-visual equipment (e.g., television, stereo, VCR) and large
electronic goods (e.g., dishwasher, washing machine, air conditioner). In particular, I
focus on one aspect of these acquisitions: the encounters between consumers and
the salespeople selling such wares. This “moment” is particularly useful for this
illustration for a number of reasons.
For one, looking at encounters between respondents and store personnel, we
position ourselves well to see the engagement of socio-cultural resources in consumer
practice. When confronted by a salesperson, consumers must react in some fashion.
In doing so, they rely upon socio-cultural resources to manage these social, face-to-
face encounters. As I show below, although financial resources also influence these
processes, such resources alone are insufficient to explain class differences in the
character of these interactions.
Electronic merchandise provides a somewhat unique opportunity to compare
the ways in which consumers in different class positions manage these encounters.
Whereas most other goods purchased by consumers are accessed on a largely, if not
wholly, self-service basis (Glazer 1993), the purchase of electronic merchandise and
appliances continues to be handled through sales personnel. As a result, it is the
norm, rather than the exception, for consumers to deal with a salesperson when
making such purchases. This category of goods, therefore, was one in which virtually
all respondents in the study had some experience involving interaction with a
salesperson that they could recount
242
In addition, in the present study, the venues at which these goods were
purchased by respondents were more or less constant across class groups.1 As
indicated in Table 8.1, class had little effect on the venue utilized by respondents in
making these purchases. Indeed, large discount chains (e.g., Circuit City, Silo,
American Appliance) were by far the most popular retail option utilized by respondents,
regardless of class position. Similarly, smaller chains and independently owned stores
—reputedly offering better service— were accessed by working class and upper-
middle class consumers alike. Although working class consumers were alone in
shopping at discount department stores (e.g., Kmart) for these wares, some upper-
middle class consumers did use the warehouse outlets associated with these stores
(e.g., Sam’s Club).
The fact that respondents throughout the sample shopped at the same or
similar stores is important because it means that the store conditions faced by these
respondents were (more or less) constant. Things like the number of salespeople on
hand, the expertise of staff, the level of service available, and the selection of goods
on offer at the stores patronized by respondents did not vary by class. Any class
differences noted in respondents’ experiences in making these purchases, therefore,
cannot be attributed to differences in the conditions themselves.
1 The data on which this discussion is based are taken from in-depth interviews and field visits
with respondents. The queries which generated these data were not designed to (necessarily)
be exhaustive of each type of electronics merchandise owned within a household. The amount
of information collected on these purchases varied by interview. In some cases, respondents
spoke only briefly about appliance purchases before moving the discussion elsewhere. I did not,
in such instances, necessarily return to these issues or ask about additional electronics
merchandise purchases. Table 7.1, therefore, should be read not as providing a systematic
survey of such purchasing in these households but rather, as an overview of household
purchasing habits.
Still, in an effort to ensure some consistency in these data, I did make a point of asking
each respondent about one type of appliance purchase: television sets. With the exception of
Table 7.1 Electronics Merchandise Shopping By Store Type and Household (1)
Household Major Major Discount Store (3) Discount Small Chains and Other
Department Department Independent Stores
Store (2) Store (4)
Upper-Middle Class
Dexter Stove. (TV) Computer Computer (Sam's Clubl
Hopewell Washer Stereo VCR, TV, Stereo
Lawton (TV2) Washer, Dryer, TV1, TV2, Computer [job-related]
Stove, Refrigerator,
Dishwasher
Mandel Dryer, Refrigerator
Parkin TV (Sam’s Clubl
Tallinger TV Air Conditioner
Working Class
Caldwell TV. VCR
Estobar (TV, Stereo) TV. Stereo
Fallon TV. Washer. Dryer (Washer), (Dryer)
Gaskei (Washer) Computer, (Washer), Washer, Refrigerator
(Refrigerator)
Robertson TV, VCR Dishwasher, (Washer), Washer, Dryer,
(Dryer) (Dishwasher)
Stevens TV. VCR
Yanelli TV. Stereo
Working Class Poor
Conti TV. VCR. Stereo
DeStefano
Greeley TV. VCR Stereo VCR2 (Thrift Storel
Naughton Stereo TV, Stereo Component
(Pawn Shopl
Warner TV (repair shopl
(1) Parentheses indicate a location at which the household shopped for an item but did not actually make the purchase. Cases in which respondents
provided information pertaining to the purchase of more than one item in a specific category (e.g., more than one TV) are designated as Item 1 or Item
2 (e.g., TV1; 7V2). In the column marked 'Other1the specific store at which the item in question was purchased is noted in brackets next to the item.
(2) For example, Sears and Macy's. (3) For example, Silo and Circuit City. (4) For example, Kmart and Caldor.
co
244
The Case of Electronic Merchandise:

Encounters with Salespeople
The popularity of large discount chain stores was not the only aspect of
respondents’ electronics-purchasing experience that was constant across class
categories. In addition to shopping at the same stores, consumers’ sentiments about
salespeople and their trustworthiness were markedly similar across class categories.
Throughout the sample, respondents harbored negative feelings about those whose
job it is to sell these goods. Indeed, general suspicions about these salespeople’s
trustworthiness were widespread. Respondents throughout the sample felt that these
individuals could not, for the most part, be trusted to tell the truth about the advantages
and disadvantages of the products they sold. As a result, many tried to avoid dealing
with them:
We basically like to be left alone. They seem to be like they’re...just

trying to sell you anything.
Ray Gasket, working class
I don’t trust anybody that sells big appliances [giggle]. You know what I
mean? It’s just, you know, it has, like, lies all over it.
Steve Mandel, upper-middle class
A number of respondents from different class backgrounds mentioned practices aimed
at "bumping you up” to a higher-priced, fancier category of goods as particularly
distasteful:
They’ll try to...move [you] up to the smarter, computerized thing that you
push, you know, six buttons instead of two...I looked around for
somebody who didn’t look like he was gonna try to sell me a bigger,
two households (the Mandels and the Gaskels) I obtained information on television purchasing
in each family.
245
meaner, badder [model].

Jane Lawton, upper-middle class
[The salesperson] just wanted us to spend more money...! mean, I just

wanted a nineteen or a twenty-one inch [television]. That was as far as I
would go...l would have come home with a twenty-five or thirty inch [set]
if it was up to the salesperson.
Debbie Fallon, working class
They’re just pushy...

Terri Stevens, working class
Indeed, consumers throughout the sample expressed feelings of wariness in dealing
with electronics salespersons. Their reputation as “pushy” and prone to distortions of
the truth did not appear the province of any particular class group.
Nevertheless, there were important class differences in the manner in which
respondents managed interactions with salespeople when making these purchases.
While virtually all respondents indicated some degree of wariness in dealing with such
salespeople, some were more willing than others to lend them an ear. In particular,
upper-middle class consumers in the study were generally more willing to do this.
Rather than attempting to shut out salespeople completely, these respondents left the
door slightly open for discussion.
For example, in her description of her search for a salesperson who was “not
going to sell [her] a bigger, meaner, badder [model]," Jane Lawton implied that she
would engage some salespeople, though she was selective about which ones she
approached. Jane buys all of her major electronic goods at two large discount chain
stores. Her initial approach is, indeed, to “shoo away” salespeople whom she sees as
generally striving to move her up to a higher category of product Jane relies primarily
246
on her own resources when choosing electronic goods, including Consumer Reports,
Best Buys guides and the solicited advice of friends. Indeed, Jane arrives at the store
prepared to seek out items that meet her pre-established criteria.2
This, however, is not always possible. When Jane cannot locate the products
that meet her criteria, she relies on salespeople for assistance. She asks them about
models not currently on display.
I said ‘I want a white television. It’s for our newly redone master
bedroom and I just want it to be real simple and, hopefully, I want it to
have rounded edges. I don’t see anything out here.’ So [the salesman]
took me to a sort of a back room where they had the dinged ones...
2 Although, arguably, an important (and class-linked) part of the acquisition process associated
with the purchase of electronic merchandise, insufficient data were collected on the use of
advice guides such as Consumer Reports or Best Buys to be included in this analysis.
Although I did ask many respondents about the use of these guides, answers were often vague
and uncertain. For example, respondents would often say “Oh yeah, I looked at Consumer
Reports...” but it was often unclear as to which type of publication was used (e.g., newspaper
column, published book, etc.) or whether the respondent examined these materials before or
after the purchase was made. I did not probe these responses enough to be sufficiently
confident in these data.
Nevertheless, some tentative conclusions may be drawn on this issue. Use of advice
guides was not limited to members of any class group. Members of working class and working
class poor households (e.g., Robertson, Yanelli, Estobar, Gaskel, Naughton) made reference to
using such guides as did upper-middle class consumers (e.g., Parkin, Lawton, Tallinger,
Dexter). Some, like Don Tallinger (upper-middle class) spoke of relying on friends who were
‘‘into” advice guides as a means of tapping the information without themselves exerting the
effort involved in culling it.
Interestingly, there were hints that class influenced the degree of stock respondents put
into the advice offered by such guides. Working class and working class poor respondents often
spoke of ignoring advice guides when the suggestions fit neither their budget, their taste or
their personal knowledge about the products under consideration. One respondent ( Gerald
Naugton, working class poor) was quite critical of various vehicles for product testing. He had
an uncle who worked for one such firm and was skeptical of the reliability of their findings. In
addition, Gerald’s own knowledge about various electronic goods led him to rely more heavily
on his own expertise (see further discussion of this issue, below). By contrast, upper-middle
class consumers seemed to place more stock in the advice offered by these guides. Jane
Lawton (upper-middle class) relied heaviiy on advice guides (as well as advice from friends)
before making a purchase. These tentative findings concur with that of other research on the
relationship between class and reliance upon expert knowledge (Brofenbrenner 1966; Hays
1996; Leidner 1995).
247
As Jane noted, “There are salesmen that I try to go back to if I like them.” In judging
salesmen that are unfamiliar to her, Jane relies upon assessments of appearance and
demeanor. She looks for someone who is “...clean-cut enough that it looks like they’re
not sleazy and slimy and they don’t have their hair slicked back and they don’t try too
hard."
Jane was like other upper-middle class respondents in her reluctant willingness
to work with salespeople. While she approached the interaction with doubts about the
helpfulness of the salespersons, she demonstrated a willingness to entertain
suggestions made by such individuals. Indeed, although upper-middle class
consumers shared a skepticism with working class consumers about salespeople,
these consumers were generally more willing to engage salespersons and evaluate the
situation as it arose.
Jane’s husband Tom, for example, told me about a recent purchase he made of
a big-screen television set. Tom had been thinking about getting one for some time
and, on a whim, went into a large discount chain one afternoon while on a weekend trip
with his son’s soccer team. Tom told me about how he generally will spend some time
listening to salesmen, but does not always put a great deal of stock into what they say.
He finds it difficult to know what to do in such circumstances:
It's really hard to make a decision because [the products] all look the
same, actually [laughter]. And you sort of, the people trying to sell it to
you give all these different things that might be advantageous from a
different end.
Whereas Jane's skepticism was centered on the blind ambition of salesmen, Tom
expressed a more specific wariness about the knowledge of those selling such wares:
248
I mean, I listen to what they have to say and I try to make up my own
mind based on what I want. It’s really hard to know 'cause salespeople
don’t know about televisions, necessarily. They’ve been trained to say
what they’ve been trained to say so they may just be regurgitating the
information they’ve been given. There’s no real understanding of what
they’re saying.
Another upper-middle class respondent, George Hopewell, expressed similar doubts
about the knowledge base of those working in this capacity. Like Tom, George was
willing to listen to salespeople’s pitches but he was unconvinced about the extent of
their expertise:
...You know, these are not sophisticated people. I mean, they’re

salespeople. They know a little bit more than you do about the products
but invariably they have to pull out a sheet and tell you what it says.
Both Tom and George see such salesmen, therefore, as not necessarily having
the knowledge to help them make their decisions. Tom, in particular, indicates an
understanding that while they may be adequately knowledgeable, this cannot be
presumed. Still, neither Tom nor George took such conclusions to mean that they
needed to avoid salespeople altogether. Instead, they would listen to the advice of
salespeople, taking from the interaction that which they deemed helpful. This approach
points to a confidence in one's abilities to evaluate a situation as it unfolds. Rather than
dismissing their advice out of hand, these consumers were willing to take in the
information, albeit with a grain of salt.
Working class respondents evidenced a more dismissive pattern.3 Some all but
refused to listen to anything salespeople had to say. Their comments about
3 ft should be noted none of the working class poor respondents has recently purchased an item
included in the electronic merchandise category. Indeed, such purchases were less common in
those households generally, as items like large kitchen appliances are less likely to be
249
salespeople were often tinged with an air of tension that was lacking in upper-middle
class accounts. In the case of working class consumers, their wariness seemed to
include a degree of anxiety, and apprehension. This unease was evidenced in part by
the immovable stances they described themselves (and their partners) as taking.
For example, when I spoke to Linda Yanelli about a big-screen television set
she and Bill had purchased, she described the role of the salesperson this way:
Once [Bill] makes his mind up, no one can sway him either way. So, the
only thing that the salesperson could really do was [short pause] he
checked the credit. He couldn’t say, 'Well, this is the better TV,’ or This
is the worse TV.’ You can’t do that with him.
Others working class consumers also spoke of taking unshakable positions when
making purchases. Terri Stevens, for example, struck a similar sounding chord, noting
a staunch unwillingness to stray from her intentions when shopping for electronic
goods. Her tone was forceful as she spoke of her experiences purchasing audio/visual
goods at large discount chains:
I don’t let anybody, any salesmen talk me into, you know, I know what
I’m going in there for and that’s it. Nobody’s gonna turn me around. That
just turns me off.
These consumers were adamant that their minds would not be changed by anything a
salesperson had to say. For them, it did not matter who the salesperson was, what he
knew (or, appeared to know) or what he had to offer; nothing was going to alter their
purchased by those residing in rental properties as most of these respondents are (the
exception being Janet DeStefano who resides with kin). In short, working class poor
respondents had fewer experiences in electronic merchandise to recount than was true of either
working class or upper-middle class consumers. Nevertheless, these respondents did have
some experiences to recount, particularly from earlier, more prosperous times in their lives (e.g.,
when they were married, when they had a steady income, etc.). The flavor of their encounters
was virtually identical to those described by members of the working class.
250
decision. Unlike upper-middle class consumers who also were wary of salespersons’
advances, these consumers were unwilling to engage the salesperson in any
significant manner. They did not want to hear about the different features of the
equipment on offer.
Some consumers described specific strategies that help avoid negotiation with
salespeople. One couple, for example, makes a point of arriving at the store with only
the cash they are prepared to spend on hand. By doing so, Debbie and Artie Fallon
insure that they cannot purchase items that are beyond the limit they establish for that
purchase:
[When we bought the television] we paid cash for it. Urn, we knew what
we had. We went in with urn, $400, I think, or maybe $410.1know that
it was no more than $410, and we said [to the salesman] This is what
we have. That’s all we want to spend. And that’s it!’ Even though we had
more money in the bank [giggle] That’s all we wanted to spend. We
usually set a limit to what we want to spend.
In the case of this television purchase, as well as that of other home appliances,
salespeople often try to persuade Debbie and Artie to purchase both higher-priced
goods and costly warranties. Debbie finds it easiest to resist their approaches by
having only a certain amount of cash on hand
[In voice of mock enthusiasm] ‘For an extra twenty-five dollars you can
buy the next... !’ And we were like ‘No! We don’t want that. We have
[this much money] and that’s it!’ And they try to sell you the warranties
too and we didn’t go with them. For like a hundred something dollars,
two to three hundred dollars for two years or three years. We just didn’t
have the money [mischievously grins].
Thus, while upper-middle class consumers listened with skepticism, working
class consumers realized more defensive postures. Working class consumers did not
251
express doubts about the knowledge as was the case with among upper-middle class
consumers. Instead, their assessments of salespeople were generally fixed on the
aggressive behavior they attributed to such individuals. This assessment was
expressed by upper-middle class respondents, as well. So, why were working class
consumers so much more defensive in their dealings with salespeople?
On the one hand, financial resources would, once again, appear to play a major
role. The fact that these consumers operate under tightly coupled budgets with little
room for movement (see Chapters Two and Three) means that they have generally
had to plan in advance for the purchase of such goods. Particularly for those lacking
credit cards (and even for those with the cards but who prefer to use cash), such
preparation often involves several weeks of saving or taking on “side jobs” (see
discussion in Chapter Four). These consumers arrive at the store only when they have
secured the cash they need to make the purchase. Under such circumstances, being
bumped up to a higher priced item is commonly either impossible (i.e., only having X
amount on hand) or highly undesirable. Indeed, such “bump ups" often have immediate
consequences for working class and working class poor consumers in terms of that
week’s budget (see Chapter Four). Buying a more expensive item than planned means
that something else will have to give. Similar, immediately-noted consequences were
not evident among upper-middle class respondents. In short, the stakes are higher for
working class and working class poor consumers; they have greater reason to be on
the defensive.
Indeed, in transactions between working class, working class poor consumers
and electronics salespersons, price tended to be the most important factor shaping the
purchase. The Fallons (working class) made this clear when they emphasized to the
252
salesperson the amount of money they had on hand. In the case of Terri Stevens
(working class), Terri was looking to purchase the least expensive VCR she could find.
When she saw a newspaper advertisement for one selling at $129 she made her way
to the store. The low price was more important to Terri than other factors. When the
salesperson tried to talk to her about other models, she immediately rebuffed his
advances.
They’ll say things like ‘Well, don't you think that you’re worth that?’ It’s
like, ‘Yeah, I do. Do you want to buy it for me? I don’t have the money.’
The tight budget under which these consumers operate, then, means that
moving up to a more expensive model is a problematic enterprise not easily
undertaken. Listening to salespeople's pitches about the virtues of such models is a
largely futile exercise. Indeed, the fact that these consumers are often shopping in the
least expensive product range, coupled with their keen interest in price means that
there tends to be little that the salesperson can offer them. Such a position is, in some
respects, a conversation-stopper. It immediately narrows the menu of possible
purchases to what is likely a fairly small selection of goods, even in large, well-stocked
stores. Disinterested in higher priced models, such consumers would have little reason
to engage salespersons. This would seem to be particularly the case when
salespeople work on a commission basis (as electronics salespeople generally do) and
have a personal interest in selling more expensive models.
These issues, once again, lead us to view financial matters as the principal
factors coloring the class-linked experiences of these consumers. But financial issues
were not the only ones at play in these encounters. Importantly, some working class
253
and working class poor respondents did, in fact, evidence evaluative practices similar
to those employed by upper-middle class respondents. There were a number of
instances where working class and working class poor consumers (men, in particular)
demonstrated a willingness to consult with salespeople and solicit their assistance if
they proved knowledgeable about the goods at hand.4 In these instances, men who
had specific knowledge of electronic products (or, in one case, automobiles), either
through work experience or through the practice of a hobby, took a critical stance
toward salespersons, similar to that taken by upper-middle class respondents, despite
the limitations of their financial resources. Other (non-financial) factors appeared to be
at play.
For example, in speaking about the purchase of stereo equipment, Gerald
Naughton (working class poor) echoed upper-middle class respondent George
Hopewell’s critical words about salespeople as not necessarily knowledgeable about
the goods they proffer. He told me about his experience a few years back looking for
stereo equipment.
I wanted [an] old-fashioned type amplifier with the main-outs, they’re

called, to run the equalizer ‘cause otherwise you gotta run them through
the cassette decks and urn... Like, a lot of the new [sales]guys, ‘cause
sometimes you go in there and you get the young kids that ain’t gonna
help ya. Like, these guys, they don't really know what they’re talkin’
about. They only know what they been told by the manual, you know
what I mean?
4 With regards to the purchase of electronic merchandise, although by no means universally so,
men tended to be more active in this area of purchasing than in others (e.g., clothing, shoes,
small decorative items) (Fram and Axelrod 1990). In some respects, this was class-specific.
Working class men were more likely to play a role in such purchases (regardless of their
participation in household acquisition activity, more generally) than were upper-middle class
men.
254
Graham Mom's (working class poor) took a similar stance with respect to the staff at an
auto/electronics supply store. After visiting the shop with him, I asked Graham whether
he thought the staff “knew what they were talking about:”
Some do, some don’t. Sometimes, you know, they hire young guys who
don't really know nothin’. But it’s all with computers. You tell them
basically what it is you’re looking for and they just punch it in and it tells
you what you need.
When buying audio-visual equipment, Graham spends a lot of time talking to
salespeople about different products. He likes to gather as much information as he can
about the products on offer
If you were a sales lady, I’d be your worst nightmare. I want to know
everything about what I’m buying. You know, what it can do? And how
long, you know, I ask you so many different questions.
Hence, Gerald and Graham did not shy away from encounters with salespeople.
Similar to upper-middle class respondents, these consumers would determine, after
speaking with the salesperson, whether or not they believed them to be knowledgeable
about the equipment on offer.
In Graham’s case, knowledge about electronic equipment came “from years of
experience.” Since his teen years Graham had always been interested in the way such
equipment worked, particularly sound systems: “...all my life I’ve been into electronics
and that’s basically, just knowing.” Gerald learned about electronic equipment from his
father and “just watching" men in his neighborhood work on various things. The house
he lived in during his childhood was “gutted” when his parents purchased it Gerald
attributes much of what he knows today about electronics and other types of household
repair work to those years of helping his dad with the house:
255
[The house] was gutted and you know, he fixed it up himself. That’s
basically, that’s where I learned a lot of my trade...comes from being
poor.
I: From working on fixing up the house.
Yeah. Cause I can remember like, yeah, I remember us being like eight
or ten years old and being upstairs and we’d rip all the windows in the
one room out and I’d be up there and having to help him hold the
window while he’d be out at the window and I’d be lookin’ out and
watchin’ all my friends playin’ football.
Later in life, Gerald honed his skills on jobs, working in maintenance and construction.
In addition, he always took an interest in figuring out how electronic goods worked.
I: And how did you leam about stuff like that? Like, you say you know
about the different brands and all, how did you leam about that?
Well, like because of the maintenance and stuff like that. Being good
with my hands and all and electronics. And just having different name
brands of stuff and taking them apart. You know, like I, a lot of times in
the neighborhood somebody [will] give me like, one lady trash picked
lamps and I rewired them for her uh, and I fixed like a lady up the
street’s VCR, several times, you know. And it’s like when you’re inside a
VCR then you’re inside [another] VCR and you look at the name brands
and the quality and you can really see the difference inside the machine.
In addition to his informal training, Gerald has taken classes at a technical trade school
where he further honed his skills. Another respondent, Ray Gaskel, who had specific
knowledge about automobiles also acquired knowledge in this way. Ray was able to
use both his formal and informal training when making car purchases.
These examples might seem to suggest that class differences in the
salesperson-customer relationship are not, in fact, meaningful. Indeed, in both their
skeptical remarks (“a lot of these guys don’t really know anything”) as well as their
general engagement with salespeople (i.e., asking questions, taking in advice) the
256
actions of these consumers are in many ways identical to those taken by upper-middle
class respondents. There is, however, an important difference.
Working class consumers only took this approach when they had specific
knowledge of the goods at issue. Working class consumers who knew little about the
products being purchased tended to adopt the more defensive strategies, particularly
that of resisting discussion with salespeople. It was only those individuals who had
significant, specific knowledge about the goods under question who evidenced the
more confident, evaluative approach. By contrast, upper-middle class consumers did
not require any special knowledge in order for them to take such an approach. In the
examples used above, neither George Hopewell nor Tom Lawton had any specific
knowledge of electronic equipment and yet felt confident that the salespeople were
likely to know only “a little more” than them. Moreover, they were willing to engage
these individuals, take from them the information they deemed helpful, and discard the
rest. Despite lacking knowledge of the particular goods being considered, George and
Tom acted in a way that suggests confidence both in their ability to fend off the
advances of salespeople and, relatedly, to analyze the information presented to them.
A number of reasons might account for George and Tom's ease in dealing with
salespersons, despite their lack of specific knowledge, and the more guarded approach
taken by similarly uninformed working class and working class poor consumers. For
one, just as the limited financial resources on which working class and working class
poor consumers rely colors their approach to managing these interactions, the relative
affluence of upper-middle class respondents plays a role, as well. For George and
Tom, the consequences of being “bumped up” from a $450 television set to a $550
television set are far less meaningful than would be the case for their financially-
257
pressed working class and working class poor counterparts. George and Tom can
entertain the idea of purchasing more expensive items in the knowledge that making
those purchases would not require them to compromise other, near-term concerns
(e.g., this month’s rent). These consumers need not shy away from such suggestions
in the immediate turn.
However, more than differences in financial resources appear to be at play in
these encounters. A second set of reasons why upper-middle class consumers were
better positioned to employ the more evaluative approach regards class-linked socio
cultural resources. These regard both the educational and occupational backgrounds
of upper-middle class consumers, as well as (related) issues of social status.
Indeed, both the educational training and work experience of upper-middle
class consumers encourage these individuals to develop the types of critical thinking
skills relied upon by Tom and George in their encounters with salespersons. In both
educational and occupational settings, upper-middle class individuals are exposed to
approaches to problem-solving that center on the application of logic and analytic
reasoning. Consider, for example, the area work experience. As Kohn (1977) has
documented, there are important class differences in the experiences of individuals as
workers. Upper-middle class professionals are accustomed to exploring various
options, absorbing abstruse information, and resolving ambiguity as part of their work
experience. Indeed, their work commonly requires the ability to make decisions based
on the evaluation of conflicting information. In addition, the work of such professionals
often requires them to present such information to others (e.g., attorneys to clients,
Judges and other attorneys; academics to students and colleagues; managers to
CEOs, assistants, and clients). As a business executive, for example, George
258
Hopewell routinely deciphers information and presents a honed version to clients not
versed in the specifics of the material being discussed. In this way, George’s
professional life is predicated upon the ability to both solve problems through
information analysis, and to offer such information to non-experts (or at least those not
intimately familiar with the particulars of the issues under discussion). Through work
experience, class offers individuals like George opportunities to develop skills in critical
thinking. These skills are not specific to particular situations but applicable to virtually
any type of problem solving or information seeking. In applying such an approach, the
specifics of the problem at hand matter little.
The universal applicability of this type of approach to information assessment
was made apparent when George discussed with me the of the type of approach he
prefers when dealing with a salesperson. Here, George reflects on a positive
experience he had at a small, independently-owned audio shop:
What I like in service is [when] somebody will come up and say, you
know ‘What can I do to help you?’ and you tell them what you’re thinking
of doing and they know how the process, what they have to do to
accomplish what you want to accomplish...[They say] Tell me about
your lifestyle. What do you want from a stereo?’ You know, ‘What are
you going to do with it? What kind of music? What are the kids gonna do
with it?’ You know, I mean, Tell me, do you understand the difference
between these three different, uh, labels of the same recording? Do you
get into that sort of stuff?’ And then after the guy talks to you a little bit
then he can say ‘Okay, let me tell you about these three types of
speakers and then I’ll tell you about this tuner and this amplifier and this
CD player and the tape deck’ and he tells you, you know, the features,
what’s good, what’s bad, what’s strong, what’s weak, the consequences
of this verses this and lets you listen. And that’s what those guys did.
In this situation, George had an appreciation for the salesperson’s logical approach to
accomplishing George's goals. The salesman understood that he first needed to obtain
information about George’s lifestyle and needs before he could make
259
recommendations. In George’s view, had the salesman recommended particular
product lines prior to asking him questions regarding his personal situation he would
not have been able to assist George in meeting his goals. George’s affinity for this
approach was rooted in a (class) background that valorizes this type of thinking and
problem solving. George did not need to have specific knowledge about the goods on
offer in order to be able to critically assess the merit of the information being presented
to him.
By contrast, working class consumers are far less practiced in this type of
generalizable approach to problem-solving. The universally-applicable skills relied
upon by upper-middle class consumers are less likely to be honed in the more
routinized occupational tasks performed by (and educational training of) working class
workers (on occupational tasks see Kohn 1977; on educational training see Bowles
and Gintis 1976). As a result, when these consumers lack specific knowledge about
the goods on hand they have a less finely tuned set of tools with which to explore the
values and benefits of various models through discussion with salespersons.5
For example, in buying a computer, Ray Gaskel (working class) was in largely
the same position as was George Hopewell in buying his stereo. Ray entered the store
knowing almost nothing about the products he was considering. Under such
circumstances, however, Ray did not attempt to make a decision using a broad-based
approach similar to that favored by George. Instead, Ray cobbled together a strategy
5 For a discussion of the relationship between work experience and taste for and use of goods
see Holt 1998. In his American study, Holt argues that the varied work experiences of the
upper-middle class and working class also influence their tastes for and appreciation of goods.
He suggests that work experience encourages upper-middle class consumers (i.e., those with
“high cultural capital”) “to emphasize self-actualization, individualization, and cosmopolitanism”
while those with “low cultural capital” value “locality, autotelic experience, and community ”
260
based on general advice from a neighbor (“she liked the Macs”), the preference of his
children (“they had used the Mac at school), and the advice offered by salespeople.
With the computer, I felt like that was something, like, I didn’t know. So
you had these guys talking to you, they look like, I always say, they look
like nerds [giggle] [and you figure] Well, this guy knows his computers,’
you know. So I seemed to put more faith in what they said. Plus, you
ask them a few questions and you can tell if somebody’s, like, knows
what they’re talking about or if they’re just trying to, you know, get
through.
I: Yeah. How can you tell? Do you remember anything in particular that
happened or the kind of things they would say?
I don’t remember anything but it was like, I guess it was the overall, the
way he, like the one guy at this one Circuit City we went to, I mean he
was like, there was no pushing, no. . .[he was] real laid back and
showed you what it could do ‘Let me show you this’ and ‘Go ‘head. Play
with it' and they start talking like a little technical jargon and it was like,
you know, he must know.. .1 don’t think he could have been acting, you
know, at least, like, [giggle] I hope he wasn’t...
In good measure, then, Ray turned things over to the salesman. Lacking expertise on
this particular type of good, Ray put his faith in the “expert” (“Well, this guy knows his
computers”) not viewing himself as able to evaluate the information presented to him in
a meaningful way. Rather than participate in the process along with the salesperson,
Ray turned things over to him. He was impressed by what are in essence superficial
matters, taking them as signals of knowledge on the part of the salesperson (“...he
started talking, like, a little technical jargon;" “they look like nerds”). Again, this is not to
say that Ray never engaged in more substantive discussions with salespeople. Indeed,
in purchasing an automobile —a category of goods about which he knows a great
deal— Ray did just that. But when making the computer purchase, about which he
knew little, Ray adopted a decidedly passive and uncertain posture, unlike that
261
employed by similarly uninformed upper-middle class respondents. (For similar findings
with regards to issues of class and parent-teacher interactions, see Lareau 1989).
As noted above, issues of social status may also be pertinent to the influence of
class on encounters of this type. The occupational and social status of upper-middle
class consumers is such that they approach these salespersons as their
educational/occupational inferiors. Upper-middle class consumers know that they, in all
likelihood, have greater educational resources than such salespersons. They approach
them, therefore, with the confidence that accompanies their position of superior social
standing, viewing them, as George Hopewell put it, as “not very sophisticated people"
(see also Lareau 1989; on the relationship between work and social status more
generally, see Bfau and Duncan 1967). Working class consumers, by contrast engage
such salespersons as either their social equals or, indeed, inferiors. These individuals
wear ties to work, perhaps even suits. They do not work outdoors or with their hands,
but in a clean environment. They do not participate in manual labor but fill out
paperwork, talk on the telephone, and rely upon language skills in doing their work. As
a result, socially, working class and working class poor consumers are at a
disadvantage (or at least not an advantage) in these encounters. Lacking specific
knowledge about the goods at hand, these consumers were reluctant to engage such
sales personnel.
That upper-middle class consumers apply standards of logic to their
information-seeking experiences should not be taken to mean that they necessarily
come away from these encounters with accurate (or otherwise better or more helpful)
information. The information that salespersons provide to these consumers may be
logically consistent (and thus, meet the upper-middle class standard) and still be
262
wrong. When lacking knowledge about the goods on offer upper-middle class
consumers are limited to evaluating the internal coherence of the information
presented but beyond that they have no way of assessing its accuracy. Clearly then
consumers with substantive knowledge about the goods on offer (be they upper-middle
class or working class) are in the most favorable position. Is the “logical consistency”
test applied by uninformed upper-middle class consumers superior to that applied by
working class consumers such as Ray Gaskel? I would argue that although certainly
imperfect, the upper-middle class approach does indeed offer a more rigorous means
of assessment. When proffering a false (but logical) presentation ill-informed (or even
mendacious) sales personnel are more prone to exposure than when they are able to
depend exclusively on more superficial cues. Ray GaskelFs reliance on non-verbal
cues would seem to provide an easier test for sales personnel to pass. This is not to
say that upper-middle class consumers do not apply this test as well (recall Jane
Lawton’s search for a “cleanout” salesperson), but those shoppers normally have
additional —arguably more useful— resources in their arsenal that encourage a more
responsive posture on the part of sales personnel.
Consumers approach retail markets equipped with a variety of resources on
which to rely in their quests for market goods. Throughout this dissertation, I have
emphasized the effects of financial resources linked to class position in shaping these
processes. Such resources, however, are not the only type of class-linked resources
employed by consumers. In this chapter, I have shown how socio-cultural resources
also linked to class position can influence acquisition processes.
263
In the present example, among those respondents who knew little about the
electronic merchandise they were purchasing, only upper-middle class respondents
were willing to engage salespersons in a meaningful way. These consumers would
interact with such sales personnel and evaluate the merits of the information imparted
to them. Working class and working class poor consumers evidenced far more
defensive and dismissive postures. While to some extent these differences can be
explained in terms of financial resource issues, there are indications that other factors
are at play. I have suggested that the approaches taken by (uninformed) upper-middle
class respondents are linked to occupational and educational experiences associated
with upper-middle class life, as well as issues of social status and the position of these
individuals in the social hierarchy.
The types of resources to which I have referred, particularly those linked to
work and educational experience can be seen as constituting forms of cultural capital,
as described by Bourdieu (1984;1987). The cultural capital of upper-middle class
consumers provides set of tools for conducting logic-based inquiries that do not rely on
any specific knowledge about the goods on hand. In providing such tools, cultural
capital breeds confidence on the part of those consumers that defies their lack of
knowledge about the goods in question. These skills constitute resources on which
upper-middle class consumers can rely when conducting market transactions.
In his own work, Bourdieu has generally referred to cultural capital as regarding
high status cultural resources (e.g., knowledge of high arts). But as others have
suggested (Lamont and Lareau 1989) it is not only in high status contexts that the
resources of the upper-middle class yield profits. This research shows how such socio
cultural resources can be applied in more mundane contexts, as well. While the
264
ramifications of the advantages held by the upper-middle class as consumers in their
quest for material goods may not be as far-reaching as they are in other contexts (e.g.,
educational institutions), these findings provide empirical weight to arguments
regarding the wider applicability of cultural capital resources than Bourdieu has
suggested.
It should be noted that the fact that these socio-cultural resources (or forms of
capital) are available to upper-middle class consumers does not necessarily mean that
they will always be activated by those individuals (Lareau 1989). Indeed, not all upper-
middle class consumers elected to query salespersons. As with members of the
working classes, most upper-middle class consumers reported being wary of such
individuals and skeptical of their advances. Many routinely avoided encounters with
these individuals in ways not wholly unlike those of the working classes. Even those
who were more willing to engage with salespeople did not pursue these interactions at
each opportunity. A variety of factors linked to the purchase (e.g., their level of
personal interest in the item being purchased; the style of the salesperson in question)
could encourage (or discourage) their willingness to engage store personnel. As
Lareau (1989) has argued, possession of cultural resources is not the same as
activation of cultural resources. Actors decide when and how to play their (cultural
capital) cards.
Although working class and working class poor consumers in the study did not
appear to possess the same types of resources as (some) upper-middle class
consumers, not all working class consumers exhibited a defensive posture. That those
with knowledge about the goods on hand evidenced more evaluative approaches
265
indicates that financial resource deficits can be overcome. As such, those resources
should not be viewed as determining the character of consumers’ interactions.
Moreover, while the specified knowledge base relied upon by working class and
working class poor consumers who adopted an evaluative posture may not constitute a
form of cultural capital of the type Bourdieu describes it may, nevertheless, be
considered a class-linked resource. The respondents who had knowledge about
electronic merchandise gained that knowledge through familial and community
socialization and work experience that is, in some measure, specific to the working
class. Both Gerald Naughton and Graham Moms referred to “just being around” their
relatives or men in their neighborhood as they worked to renovate their homes, repair
broken appliances or worked on their cars as the basis for their knowledge about
various types of electronic merchandise. Living in densely populated urban centers
among individuals who themselves do the work involved in making such repairs and
modifications is likely to be most prevalent among members of the working classes.8
As a result, the knowledge relied upon by these consumers may also be considered a
class-linked resource. Similarly, working with things mechanical is often part of working
class men’s jobs (including, in the present study, Gerald Naughton, Ray Gaskel and
Bill Yanelli). Just as knowledge about computers (gained through work experience) can
be seen as a class-linked resource of the upper-middle class, so too can knowledge
about things mechanical be considered a class-linked resource of working class
consumers.
Finally, it should be evident that the effects of social status on the relationship
between working class and working class poor consumers and representatives of retail
6 Although, today, the practice of home renovation techniques as a hobby of sorts crosses class
266
institutions can take a variety of forms, some of which would be contrary to that noted
here. For example, it has been suggested that the relationship between working class
and working class poor consumers and retail sales personnel in low-status positions
(e.g., cashiers) is often characterized by familiarity and congenial overtures. For
example, Miller et al. (1998) found that empathy for shop assistants was high among
the working class shoppers in their study, with many such shoppers themselves
working (or having worked) in similar occupations. Such affinities may be
advantageous to the consumer (as, for example, when the cashiers at Mary Conti's
(working class poor) local supermarket let a few food items slip through the checkout
without having been scanned) or not (as when empathetic customers tolerate poor
service for fear of getting the clerk “in trouble"). Though there were signs of
customer/clerk solidarity among working class consumers in the present study it was
not apparent that such feelings resulted in markedly different treatment of such store
personnel by class. Unlike the relatively unique experience of purchasing electronic
merchandise, encounters with shop cashiers are fleeting and largely unmemorable (for
the customer/respondent). As such, a research design that focuses more attention on
observation of such encounters would be necessary in order for firm conclusions in this
regard to be reached. Thus, while my findings illustrate the influence of socio-cultural
resources on encounters between consumers and sales personnel they do not account
for all of the possible relationships of this type.
and gender lines, this is a relatively recent phenomenon (Underhill 1999).
267
CHAPTER 8
THE LIMITS OF CLASS
Introduction
Given the evidence put forth in the preceding chapters, the notion that
consumption is a classless arena (Clark and Lipset 1991; Pakulski and Waters 1996)
is apparently an inadequate one. There can be little doubt that the processes through
which individuals obtain market goods include mental, emotional, and physical
activities that vary in meaningful ways by class. By including the practices of
acquisition in our definitions of “consumption," the influence of class becomes
indisputable.
Nevertheless, it is not my intention to suggest that each aspect of consumers’
experiences is fundamentally “about class."1Although class had a major influence over
much of what consumers in the study experienced in obtaining market goods, by no
means did each aspect of these processes vary by class. Without question, being a
consumer is more than simply a class experience. Indeed, those who refer to the
realm of consumption as a classless arena are not entirely wrong to do so.
In this chapter, I present findings from the dissertation research which point to
the limitations of class analysis to explain selected aspects of consumer experience. I
consider three areas of consumer experience. First, I discuss the extent to which
respondents in the present study experience what I refer to as class-integrated (i.e.,
members of different classes shopping at the same retail store) and “no class" (i.e.,
1 This is illustrated, in part, by the overwhelming tendency in current academic work on

consumption to focus not on class but other aspects of consumption and consumer experience.
Areas emphasized in this growing body of literature include gender (de Grazia 1996; Reekie
268
members of different class groups shopping at different but highly similar retail stores)
shopping. Second, I explore the reactions of consumers of different class groups to
problems encountered in the market (e.g., poor service; returning unwanted
merchandise). Finally, I explore the relationship between class and consumers'
attitudes toward and feelings about “shopping." In each case, the experiences of
consumers are in many ways consistent across class lines.
Shopping Without Class: The Sites of Retail
There is a tradition in consumer studies, particularly in the United States, of
examining consumption as a social problem (e.g., Aaker and Day 1978; Joyce and
Govoni 1971; Magnuson and Carper 1968). More specifically, this tradition focuses on
the ways in which the poor, the elderly, and members of various minority groups are
disadvantaged in the market. The most well-known work in this tradition is David
Caplovitz’s, The Poor Pay More. In this work, Caplovitz (1963) focuses much of his
research on the experiences of poor consumers in managing problems they encounter
in the market. He documents a stream of injustices levelled against poor consumers by
retailers, including charging exorbitant prices for goods of extremely poor quality and
the employment of unsavory selling practices (e.g., bait and switch). Others working in
this tradition have met with similar findings (Andreason 1975; 1986; Alwitt and Donley
1996; Consumers Union 1993).
The notion that “the poor pay more” rests, in large measure, on segregated
shopping patterns (Alwitt and Donley 1996:131). If the poor (or others) shop at stores
which cater primarily or exclusively to such clientele, retailers can, with ease, enact
1993; Nixon 1992; Mort 1996; Campbell 1997), popular culture (Williamson 1988; Fiske 1989;
Morley 1992; also see Shields 1992), youth (Nava 1992; Mort 1988).
269
store policies (of pricing, service etc.) that affect only the poor. Though it is certainly
possible for retailers to treat a varied clientele base differently (Ayres 1991), much of
what we know to be the disadvantages consumers from lower class groups is linked to
segregated shopping patterns. The poor shop at store X; store X charges high prices
and sells inferior products.
Segregated shopping also affects what are perhaps more subtle aspects of
shoppers’ experiences. Shopping is at least partly an aesthetic experience (Falk 1997;
Shields 1992). The images and objects we see when shopping and the manner in
which they are displayed have an impact upon us. The same is true of the sounds
(e.g., music, general noise level) and smells of shopping (or, indeed, other) spaces
(Gladwell 1996; Bittner 1990). Just as the burned-out buildings, neglected facades,
and littered streets prevalent in so many American central cities contribute to what is
often hopelessness and despair among residents (Nasar 1998) unclean, dimly lit
shopping spaces would also seem able to affect shoppers’ states of mind. To be sure,
differing standards and sensibilities mean that individuals from different backgrounds
(or even those with the same background) may experience the same aesthetic
conditions differently. But, if we accept that within a broad cultural milieu (e.g.,
American culture, Southern culture) there are some general principles of what
constitutes positive and negative physical surroundings (such as a certain level of
cleanliness, brightness etc.) then it may be possible to compare shopping spaces on
this front.
I did not find class segregation in shopping to be pervasive in the
Richmond/Sylvan communities. Instead, in many retail contexts the norm was for
members of different class groups to shop at the same or highly similar stores. A
270
number of trends in retail, both past and present, would appear to be making class-
integrated and “no class” shopping increasingly prevalent. I discuss these below.
Expansion of Large Retail Chains
Chain stores (retailers selling the same or similar merchandise under the same
name at multiple locations) first came upon the U.S. retail landscape in the late
nineteenth century. Grocers (e.g., A & P; Piggly Wiggly) and variety stores (e.g.,
Woolworth’s), were among the first stores to operate at numerous locations (Strasser
1989; Cam'er 1995). During this initial period of growth, most chains were owned and
operated by the same individual or entity. The franchise form of retail chains -whereby
the retailer pays a fee to the “parent company” for the right to use its name, distribute
its products, and use its process of doing business- was also initiated during the
nineteenth century. Franchising, however, did not really become widespread until after
World War II (Luxenberg 1985; Dicke 1992). Initially limited to particular industries or
manufacturers (e.g., Singer sewing machines; Coca Cola; gasoline; automobiles)
franchising expanded rapidly during the booming post-war years. Today, chain
retailers frequently operate both as franchises and company owned outlets (e.g.,
McDonald’s, Midas Muffler, Holiday Inn, 7-Eleven) (Shook and Shook 1993).
Franchises alone currently account for over one-third of all U.S. retail market sales
(Dicke 1992:1).
In recent years, the prevalence of retail chains has by many accounts
“exploded.” In particular, retail categories in which chains previously had only a minor
presence have become increasingly dominated by such retail forms. Today, the drug
stores, dry cleaners, hardware stores, and video rental shops consumers patronize are
far more likely to be part of regional or, indeed, international chains than was the case
271
even twenty years ago (Ritzer 1993; Jones 1991). Indeed, many of today’s largest
retail chains, including Blockbuster Entertainment (Chain Store Age Executive 1996),
Domino’s Pizza (Dicke 1992), Toys R Us, and the Gap (Michman and Greco 1995)
either began or greatly expanded their operations within the past twenty-five years.
By definition, different branches of the same retail chain offer consumers highly
similar products in terms of the store’s appearance, stock, and quality of service.
Predictability and standardization are the hallmarks of these rationalized operations
(Ritzer 1993; 1998; Leidner 1993). Regardless of what neighborhood, city, state or
even country they are in, customers know what they will find when they check into a
Holiday Inn, “fall into" the Gap, or, as sociologist George Ritzer has so ably pointed
out, bite into a Big Mac. While efforts are sometimes made to cater to the local
character and clientele, different branches of the same chain would seem to have far
more in common than that which sets them apart.
In the present study, chain stores were widely patronized by consumers from all
class groups. Home improvement stores (e.g., Home Depot), discount stores (e.g.,
Kmart. See below), music stores (e.g., The Wall), and fast-food restaurants were
among the many chain retailers routinely patronized by respondents across class
categories. This meant that consumers throughout the sample did much of their
shopping at either the same store or at different branches of the same retail chain. For
example, as noted above, in the case of electronic merchandise, large national and
regional discount chains specializing in such products (e.g., Circuit City; Silo) were by
far the most popular type of retailer used by respondents when shopping for such
products (see Table 7.1). In that instance, respondents across class categories
patronized the same branches of those chains.
272
For other products, respondents shopped at different branches of the same
chain retailer. For example, the CVS chain of drug stores operates at five locations in
the Sylvan/Richmond communities. While respondents from all class categories
shopped at these stores, they tended to shop at those outlets closest to their homes.
Thus, upper-middle class respondents tended to shop at the CVS stores located in
Sylvan while the working class and working class poor patronized the stores in
Richmond.
Importantly, however, the CVS drug stores in the Richmond communities were
not notably different from those in the Sylvan area. Store displays were identical. The
products on offer did not appear to differ markedly. Set at the corporate level, prices at
the various locations were, with the exception of one, identical.2
In short, even when respondents shopped at different stores, the fact that the
retailers, such as CVS, patronized by respondents were part of chain operations meant
that store conditions were highly similar, regardless of location or clientele.
Changing Marketing Strategies
Discount stores such as Kmart have long been viewed as a bastion of the
working class. Indeed, in the past, stores of this type have been primarily marketed to
and patronized by consumers from working class groups. For example, until recently
2 These prices are determined at the corporate level through the grouping of stores into “price
zones”. All stores grouped in a given zone charge the same prices for the same merchandise.
These zones are not necessarily linked to issues of neighborhood geography per se but are
linked to factors such as the nature of competition within the area or the length of time the store
has been in operation (Allard 1999). At CVS, stores are zoned separately for pricing on “front
store” merchandise (e.g., cosmetics, diapers, non-prescription drugs, greeting cards, school
supplies) and pharmaceuticals. The five CVS stores located in the Sylvan and Richmond
communities were grouped in the same price zone for “front store” merchandise (Docherty
1999). Only one store (one of the Richmond locations) was placed in a different price zone for
pharmaceuticals. That store charged slightly lower prices on those products, apparently as a
result of local competition and the store’s (short) tenure at that location (Allard 1999).
273
the typical Kmart customer was a “blue-collar high school graduate with an income of
$15,000 to $20,000 (Taub 1983).
However, as of the early 1990s, discount stores have been both promoted to
and used by consumers from a broad range of income and occupational groups
(Barnard 1992; Dawson, Stem and Gillpatrick 1990; Gallagher 1989). For example,
Kmart now offers the Martha Stewart line of fashions for the home alongside their
longstanding Jacqueline Smith line of modestly priced fashions for women. As perhaps
the ultimate symbol of upper-middle class style, the addition of Martha Stewart
products by Kmart represents a clear signal of their interest in upscaling their image
and expanding (or, perhaps, shifting) their customer base. Target, the fastest growing
discount retail chain is attracting customers not traditionally viewed as discount store
customers (Steinhauer 1998; Chain Store Executive Age 1994). Offering merchandise
of slightly higher quality and more up-to-date in terms of fashion, Target’s success has
been keyed to its ability to attract upper-middle class customers along with those of
working class groups.
While it is unclear whether upper-middle class respondents in the present study
are new customers to discount stores like Kmart, there is no question that they are
customers. As Table 8.1 illustrates, respondents throughout the sample patronized the
area’s numerous discount stores. Five discount stores and one member warehouse (a
subsidiary of a discount chain) were patronized by respondents in the study: Rosebud3
(a regional chain), two Kmart stores, Caldor, Bradlees, and Sam’s Club. Rosebud was
located in a shopping center off of a main avenue in Lower Richmond. Similarly, one of
3 In some cases I have used pseudonyms for retail stores in order to retain geographical
anonymity for the relevant communities in the study.
274
Table 8.1 Discount Store Patronage by Household
Household Kmart (1) Clover Caldor/ Sam’s Club

Bradlees
Upper-Middle Class
Dexter X X X X
Hopewell K1 X
Lawton X X X
Mandel X X
Parkin X
Tallinger K1
Working Class
Caldwell K2 X X
Estobar X X
Fallon K2 X X X
Gaskel K2 X X X
Robertson X X X
Stevens X
Yanelli K1 X X
Working Class Poor

Conti X X X
DeStefano X
Greeley X X
Naughton X X
Warner X X
(1) There are two different Kmart stores within the vicinity of the study area. In some cases the
data reflect this distinction and are noted as K1 and K2. K1 is located in Sylvan and K2 is
located in a suburban area outside of both the Sylvan and Richmond communities. An ‘X’ in
the 'Kmart column* indicates that it is not known which of the two Kmart stores the household
patronized.
275
the two Kmart stores was located in a shopping center in the heart of suburban Sylvan.
Also included in that center was Ricardo’s, the supermarket most relied upon by upper-
middle class respondents. The remaining stores were in areas just beyond the Sylvan
community.
As indicated in Table 8.1, Rosebud and Kmart were widely cited as places
where respondents from all class groups shop. And although Caldor and Bradlees
were used almost exclusively by working class respondents, Sam’s Club, the
wholesale warehouse, was utilized by upper-middle class and working class
respondents alike.
Upper-middle class respondents spoke of utilizing these retailers to purchase a
variety of goods, including gardening equipment, toys, games, lawn chairs, candles,
and, particularly for children, underwear and sox. Peggy Hopewell, for example,
estimates that she goes to the Sylvan Kmart an average of once a month (“Kmart is
where I really go a good bit"). She has her photographs developed there and almost
always picks up other goods on those trips. Peggy does her supermarket shopping at
Ricardo’s and finds the Kmart (located in the same shopping plaza) convenient.
Working class and working class poor consumers relied upon these stores for
a much wider variety of purchases. For example, in addition to the types of goods
mentioned by upper-middle class respondents, many reported buying virtually all of
their clothing (both for themselves and their children) at these stores. Items like sheets
and blankets, compact discs, shoes, and wedding gifts were also among those
purchased at such stores by these consumers. Hence, unlike upper-middle class
shoppers who used them for a narrower range of purchases, these stores formed the
276
backbone of working class and working class poor respondents’ non-food shopping
experiences.
Nevertheless, regardless of what they are purchasing at the stores, such stores
were regularly patronized by members of each class group. As with other types of
chains, discount stores, widely viewed as working class strongholds, in many ways
constituted integrated shopping environments.
It is notable that of all the discount stores patronized by respondents in the
study, the one located in the upper-middle class neighborhood, Sylvan, appeared to be
the oldest and most run-down of such stores in the Lower Richmond/Sylvan areas. As
is reflected in fieldnotes from a shopping trip with Linda Yanelli (working class), in
comparison to the discount store Rosebud, located in Lower Richmond, there was little
question in my mind that, aesthetically, this Kmart provided a far less pleasant
shopping atmosphere. On this day, I joined Linda as she shopped, first, at Kmart and
then at Rosebud. Once at Rosebud, the shabbiness of the Sylvan Kmart store was
made apparent to me:
Rosebud has a much cleaner, newer feel to it than Kmart did...There is

dark green carpeting on the floor in some sections (e.g., in clothing and
lingerie) but not all (e.g., housewares). Sylvan’s Kmart had no
carpeting, just off-white linoleum squares. The signs in Rosebud are
more contemporary looking (e.g., price signs I saw in Kmart were
tattered and the print had a 70s look to it, while the ones in Rosebud
look crisper and newer, more contemporary). The lighting in Rosebud is
also brighter and feels warmer. At Kmart, the fluorescent bulbs were
fully exposed. In Rosebud the they are housed in those rectangular,
metallic “shades” that fit around such bulbs (hanging from the ceiling)...
Music is playing in the background [at Rosebud], but it is lower and has
a softer sound than the music at Kmart. The sound quality is better
here.
277
Thus, to the extent that aesthetics were different at the various discount store
locations, contrary to what one might expect, it was the store in Sylvan, rather than
Richmond that stood out as providing a less pleasant shopping environment.
"One-Mall-Fits-AH"
A final example of class-integrated shopping in the study regards shopping at
malls. A somewhat more complicated picture was evident with respect to mall
shopping in the sample. On the one hand, there was clear evidence of cross class
shopping at several of the area’s malls. For example, though few respondents in the
study patronized the Sylvangate Mall, two families were quite regular customers at this
mall (see Table 8.2). The working class Gaskel family and the upper-middle class
Dexter family reported frequent weekend visits to Sylvangate with the entire family.
Members of each household spoke about this mall as a place they enjoyed spending
leisurely weekend days or, less often, weekday nights. “Sticky buns” were a favorite
treat at the mall, enjoyed by members of the Gaskel and Dexter families, alike. Other,
infrequently visited malls (e.g., Orchard Hill, Jefferson’s Comers) also evidenced no
clear class-linked pattern.
Founders’ Way Mall, the mall located closest to the Lower Richmond/Sylvan
communities, was the mall most frequented by respondents in the study across class
categories. Opened in 1966, Founders Way was one of the region’s first malls
(Greenberg 1999). As with other malls built in that era (Kowinski 1985), Founders Way
is two stories high and is anchored at each of its major end-points by a department
store. There are currently 114 retailers operating at the mall. Unlike more
contemporary malls, Founders’ Way has only a small number of food outlets, and little
seating area is offered. There is a counter-service restaurant “The Founders’ Grille”
Table 8.2 Mall Patronage by Household (1)
Household Knightsbridge Court Knightsbridge Founders’ Way Sylvangate Orchard Hill Jefferson’s Corners
Plaza
Upper-Middle Class
Dexter X X
Hopewell
Lawton X X X
Mandel X X
Parkin X X
Tallinper X X
Working Class
Caldwell X X X
Estobar
Fallon X X X
Gaskel X X X X X
Robertson X
Stevens X
Yanelli X
Working Class Poor

Conti X X
DeStefano X
Greeley
Naughton X X
Warner X
(1) Mall patronage is defined as shopping at a particular location at least 2-3 times per year.
279
located at the center of the mail’s main floor. The scripted neon sign that hangs over
the restaurant’s counter areas betrays the mail’s age, as does the modest decorative
fountain located just yards away. The fountain operates on a timer that intermittently
casts colored lights over different sections of its base pool while bursts of water shoot
out at various heights from points around the fountain. There is just one bank of
escalators in the L-shaped mall and one set of stairs, each located about one-third of
the way into the main mall area from the respective anchor stores. Twelve years ago a
branch of an international chain of “stylish but affordable” home furniture and
decorative items opened not within the mall itself, but on what was formerly part of
Founders’ Way’s parking facility. A canopy-covered sidewalk provides a mostly
psychological connection for shoppers travelling from one building to the other.
Working class, working class poor and upper-middle class consumers alike
cited the convenience of this older mall as a major attraction. Although upper-middle
class shoppers spoke of doing less mall shopping generally, most indicated that
because of its convenience, Founders’ Way was the mall at which they most often
shopped. Cindy Dexter (upper-middle class), for example, works across the road from
Founders’ Way and often stops in during her lunch break. Jill Parkin (upper-middle
class) and a friend make regular visits to this mall to go walking, particularly during the
colder winter months. In addition, Jill recently renovated her kitchen and frequent trips
to Founders’ Way-based furniture and decorative store brought her to the mall, as well.
Without question, its close proximity to Sylvan was what drew upper-middle
class consumers to this location. Indeed, these respondents often spoke disparagingly
about Founders' Way and what they saw as its unpleasantness. Many of these
respondents qualified their use of this mall in this fashion, remarking that despite
280
otherwise negative feelings about the mall, they nevertheless shopped there because
of its convenience. Louise Tallinger expressed typical sentiments as she and I drove
toward Founders’ Way one Sunday afternoon:
Louise heads down Clearwater Pike. I ask her Where are we heading
now?' ‘Over to Founders', which is probably my least favorite mall to go
to...i don't really go to malls very much but I go here sometimes just
cause it’s convenient’ What makes this your least favorite?' [pause] 'I
think it’s not as bright as it could be. The lighting seems dim and stores
are always closing...it’s just not a very pleasant place to be...’ [Louise
scrunches her nose up in an expression of distaste].
Other upper-middle class respondents spoke of Founders’ Way as being rundown and
having “nothing very interesting” in stock. Nevertheless, like Louise, principally as a
result of its convenience they did shop at Founders’ Way.
Working class and working class poor respondents did not speak in similarly
disparaging terms about this mall. By contrast, these consumers often remarked on
how “comfortable" they felt there. As one put it: “We’ve been going there forever.Jt’s
comfortable. It’s like home "While these respondents also mentioned the draw of its
convenience, for them, this was not the sole attraction. Unlike the upper-middle class,
warm feelings about this mall were typical for working class and working class poor
respondents.4
Thus, with respect to Founders’ Way Mall, there were, indeed, differing views
by class as to the pleasantness of the surroundings and general comfort level
experienced at the mall. At the same time, however, members of all class groups did,
indeed, shop at this facility. As noted above, convenience spurred upper-middle class
4 For similar findings on the relationship between class and feelings about shopping spaces see
Milter et al 1998.
281
respondents to shop at Founders’ Way. In addition, other factors, linked to the
prevalence of chain retailers (see above) and the standardized composition of
American shopping malls more generally (e.g., Kowinski 1985; Jacobs 1984), as well
as the prevalence of brand name goods also brought the upper-middle class to
Founders’ Way, despite their misgivings. Indeed, many —although by no means all—
purchases can be made just as easily at Founders’ Way as in any other mall in the
region (or, for that matter, the country, perhaps the world). As with other malls,
Founders’ Way has a Gap, a Foot Locker, a Wall (music store), and a chain bath and
bedding store. While there are indeed differences in the merchandise sold at different
branches of the same chain, certain items such as sox, turtleneck pullovers or jeans
from the Gap, for example, can be found at virtually any of their locations. Other brand
name goods, such as Nike sneakers or Clinique cosmetics are also widely available in
most mall department stores or chain sports stores.5 Indeed, as with chain stores,
brand name products offer consumers standardized wares (Strasser 1989). When
buying such goods, the store at which they are purchased has no bearing on the
physical product the consumer brings home. Other items like compact discs or video
tapes are similarly unaffected by where they are purchased.
Thus, upper-middle class consumers who did not find the ambience of
Founders’ Way to their liking, could, nevertheless, make many of the purchases they
so desired at that mall. Standardization of malls, chain stores and brand name goods
means that, for many purchases, it does not matter which mall (or other retail form) the
consumer patronizes. On a functional level —the level at which “time poor” upper-
5 It is noteworthy that the sale of store brand goods which are, in essence “knock offs” of name
brands have dramatically increased sales in recent years. Studies have found little difference in
the preference for store brands by income group (Walker 1991).
282
middle class consumers often shopped— one mall is often as good as the next.
Hence, as with the other, less widely visited malls in the sample region (Sylvangate,
Orchard Hill, Jefferson’s Comers) class had little bearing on consumer patronage of
Founders’ Way; class-integrated shopping was in evidence.
Conflicting evidence was found at another mall facility located near the sample
communities. Knightsbridge offered shoppers a choice of two malls at essentially the
same location. The Knightsbridge facility opened its doors in 1962 as one shopping
mall known as “The Plaza." This mall was quite similar to the present-day Founders’
Way Mall, featuring similar types of stores, food services, and aesthetic amenities. In
1981, a second, “distinctly upscale” mall known as “The Manor" was added to the
Knightsbridge facility establishing two separate shopping malls only yards from each
other (Gregory Communications 1995). The Manor was given a far more polished and
contemporary image than the older Plaza facility, featuring more upscale stores (e.g.,
Bloomingdale’s, the Coach Store) and a layout and design befitting such retail
occupants. In contrast to the generally worn and outdated features of the Plaza, the
newer Manor facility’s design included marble floor coverings, modem lighting
systems, higher ceilings, and a more varied floorplan.
At the time data for the present research was collected, a clear class schism
was at work with respect to respondents’ patronization of the Knightsbridge malls. As
shown in Table 8.2, when upper-middle class respondents shopped at Knightsbridge,
they shopped at the newer mall, The Manor; when working class and working class
poor consumers shopped at Knightsbridge, they shopped at the older mall, The Plaza.
283
As with Founders’ Way, upper-middle class respondents viewed the (older)
Plaza as a generally undesirable location. Lori Mandel, for example, explained her
preference for the Manor this way:
I've always felt it was crappier on the other side [laughtei]. I know
that’s... [shaking her head. She does not end her sentence but the word
in her head seems to be “snobby” or something similar]...you know,
Sears, JCPenny. I don’t know, it’s just, it’s schlocky.
On the flip side, working class respondents viewed the Manor as “high class" and
“expensive.” Several respondents spoke about the “snooty people" who shopped at
that mall. Janet DeStefano’s (working class poor) sentiments were typical. As with
others, Janet felt out of place at The Manor:
Like in [the Manor], like, you’d be afraid to, maybe, knock an ashtray
over or something [laughter]...You have these snooty people, you know,
with their noses stuck up in the air and all dressed up to go shopping,
right? With the make-up on just right, you know, and their hair combed
just right [giggle].
As with most working class and working class poor respondents, Janet was much
more likely to shop at Founders’ Way than either of the Knightsbridge malls. On the
occasions she did go to Knightsbridge, however, the “side with Sears” was the one to
which she went.
In this way, class-integrated mall shopping was not always in evidence. At
Knightsbridge, with the issue of convenience removed and differences in store
offerings heightened, upper-middle class shoppers headed for one building while
284
working class and working class poor shoppers headed for another. The segregated
nature of shopping at Knightsbridge could scarcely have been more apparent.6
Nevertheless, while the data for the present research was being collected,
changes at the Knightsbridge facility were taking place that would significantly alter the
present state of affairs at that shopping location. The mail’s operators were, at that
time, completing a redevelopment project aimed at redesigning and expanding the
older Plaza facility. In doing so, Knightsbridge would be upgraded to form a “regional
shopping center." The redeveloped Plaza Mall alone would include six department
stores (in contrast to the original two department-store anchors) and almost two
hundred other retail facilities. While the Manor (previously preferred by upper-middle
class respondents) would remain essentially unchanged, the Plaza would be greatly
expanded to include an wide array of retailers. Existing tenants such as Woolworth’s,
Payless Shoes, the Dress Barn would be joined by more upscale retailers including
J.Crew, Armani, and AnnTaylor. As part of this redevelopment, the older facility has
undergone major renovation work in order to create a consistent design throughout the
mall’s corridors and other common areas (e.g., food court, elevators, sitting areas).
The new design includes “rich, cherry wood handrails, Italian marble inlaid floors, and
hand-crafted, stained-glass skylights that resemble the quilted patchwork of [local
6 An interesting exception to this should be noted. Teenaged children of working class and
working class poor parents often shopped at the Manor, as well as other (specific) shopping
locations deemed unaffordable by their parents (e.g., Victoria’s Secret, Sturcture). Relatedly,
these teens often purchased brand name products their parents could not themselves afford
(e.g., Izod Lacoste shirts; Calvin Klein jeans). Indeed, several working class and working class
poor mothers told of contentious exchanges with their teenage children over the wisdom of
expensive brand name purchases. Such patterns suggest that the teen years represent a unique
time in the lives of working class and working class poor consumers. With earning capacities
close to or on par with that of their parents and a freedom from the ever-present financial
responsibilities that come with parenthood (or adulthood more generally), working class and
working class poor teenagers are able to access goods that will likely be beyond their reach in
the coming years.
285
artisans].” (Gregory Communications 1995). In addition these physical improvements,
most of the Plaza's existing tenants are altering their facades and store displays “to
reflect the new merchandising character of the entire project..." These stores have
remained in their original locations, but changed their look to better blend in with their
more upscale neighbors and the new common areas design.
The result of these redevelopment efforts has been the creation of a regional
shopping center aimed at attracting a diverse base of customers both in terms of their
financial resources and community of residence (i.e., wider geographic draw). By
combining traditionally working class stores with more upper class retailers, The Plaza
is now meant to be accessed by consumers from varied class backgrounds. Indeed,
as stated in promotional literature provided by the mail’s developer, the redesign and
expansion is intended to create a shopping complex of “cross-demographic appeal:”
Key to the mall's success is the addition of many upscale retailers to

what has traditionally been a demographically diverse retail positioning.
Joining the mail’s current stores and shops will be such premier retailers
as Bally of Switzerland, Bernini, F.A.0 Schwarz, Georgie, Jessica
McClintock, Tiffany and Co., and scores of high-end retailers. With
these additions, no other mall in America will offer such a sweeping
array of retailers and merchandise, making Knightsbridge the country’s
most complete mall in terms of cross-demographic appeal. (Gregory
Communications 1995)
Thus, cross-demographic (or class-integrated) shopping is a stated goal of those
responsible for implementing these changes at Knightsbridge. In contrast to the
previous situation —with one group of shoppers patronizing the Manor and another
group patronizing the Plaza— the redeveloped Knightsbridge complex offers an array
286
of shopping options under one roof that appeal to consumers of varied class groups.7
By housing both upscale stores and more modest retailers, Knightsbridge will provide
a shopping environment explicitly designed to attract consumers from across the class
spectrum.
Chain stores and shopping malls have been widely criticized in both popular
accounts and academic literature. Critics blame these retail forms for driving
independent retailers out of business and thus, killing the life of small towns and
downtowns throughout the country (e.g., Jackson 1985; Kowinski 1985; Kunstler
1993). Perhaps more to the point, malls, in general, and chain stores, in particular, are
seen as part of a general trend toward standardization and homogenization of
everyday life. As Ritzer (1993, 1998) argues, the predictability that comes with chain
retail (and other aspects of what he terms “McDonaldized society”) deprives us of the
wonders of individual creativity. In short, it makes life boring. More gravely, these
rationalized operations are in many ways dehumanizing for both customers and
workers (Leidner 1993).8 Customers of these stores are confronted with the same,
7This “one mall fits all” approach is by no means new. Historically, shopping malls in the United
States have tended to include stores catering to a wide spectrum of consumers (Kowinski 1985;
Jacobs 1984). This has particularly been the case in small cities and more rural areas. Unable to
support more than one shopping mall, areas with smaller population densities have long relied
on a “one-mall-fits-all" approach, whereby more upmarket anchors (e.g., Bon Ton) and smaller
retailers (e.g., Bombay Company, Gymboree) catering to a higher income clientele co-exist with
more modest department stores (e.g., Sears, JC Penney) and shops. Such malls tend to be
dominated by middle-of-the-road stores (e.g., the Limited, Hallmark card stores, pet stores) that
appeal to a varied customer base. Thus, the notion of consumers from varied class
backgrounds shopping at the same mall facility is not something unique to regional shopping
centers, like the one at Knightsbridge.
8 In her study of routinized work, Leidner (1993) found that the work was, in many respects,
dehumanizing for those performing such work tasks. Nevertheless, many of the workers in her
study expressed positive feelings about the “scripted” nature of their work. Some, for example,
relished being relieved from the burdens of decision-making.
287
standard set of goods and service offerings, regardless of their individual
requirements.
But chain retail can also be viewed in a more positive light. If the
standardization prevalent in these retail forms is dehumanizing, it is also
democratizing. As Simmel (1978) warily noted in his classic works on money, the fact
that rationalized systems remove the human element from the transactions means that
tradition and social relations cease to matter. In other words, the qualities of the
individual making the purchase matter little when the price of a good is a set amount of
cash dollars. The value of the money is the same regardless of anything connected to
its owner or origins. Although dehumanizing, such a situation is also egalitarian.
Everyone’s money has the same worth (but see Zelizer 1994).
Similarly, by standardizing the retail setting, the sameness of both chain retail
and mall shopping in many ways levels the field on which consumers from different
backgrounds play. When branches in different neighborhoods and regions offer the
same goods and services, consumers from different class backgrounds confront what
are largely the same goods and services when accessing products. The
standardization offered by chain retail means that variation in the conditions faced by
consumers in different class positions (or other factors) is significantly reduced.9
In The Poor Pay More, Caplovitz’s findings rest, in large measure, on
segregated shopping patterns. In my research, however, I did not find pervasive class
segregation in shopping. Although, as noted in Chapter Three, working class poor
consumers do opt out of much consumption activity, even these consumers do not
9 For a more general discussion of the positive aspects of rationalized systems, see Ritzer
(1993:14-15).
288
shop in stores exclusively catering to such clientele. Caplovitz’s suggestion that poorer
consumers consistently and uniquely face adverse conditions in retail settings was not
borne out in the study. Indeed, even discount stores, traditionally working class
strongholds, appear to be increasingly accessed by more middle class shoppers.
Of course, not all shopping is class-integrated. In particular, style-laden goods
such as clothing or furniture was rarely purchased at the same stores across class
groups in the study. Upper-middle class consumers bought their clothes in Talbot’s,
Banana Republic, and Macy’s while working class and working class poor consumers
shopped for such goods at Kmart. Other areas of purchase produced mixed results in
terms of class segregation. Food shopping, for example, was often done at different
stores. The atmosphere of the supermarkets in Richmond and Sylvan was different.
Lower Richmond supermarkets did seem dirtier, noisier and more crowded than those
in Sylvan. Working class respondents from West Richmond themselves spoke
disparagingly of their neighborhood store; the refrigerators never seemed to work
properly; sale items were never in stock.
Importantly, however, working class and working class poor respondents in the
study did not limit themselves to shopping at their local stores. A short drive from the
poorly viewed West Richmond store was a cleaner, more spacious supermarket at
which upper-middle class, working class, and working class poor respondents alike
reported regularly shopping. Indeed, within a five or so mile radius of central
Richmond, almost a dozen supermarkets could be found. These consumers had
alternative choices and they took advantage of them. Even with regards to food
shopping —a category of goods for which it makes sense to shop close to home for
289
reasons of freshness, particularly for refrigerated and frozen foods— strict class
segregation was not in evidence.10
My point is that both class-integrated and “no class” shopping was prevalent in
a variety of situations. The fact that so much of contemporary retail transactions is
conducted in chain stores that emphasize standardization means that the in-store
conditions with which individuals acting as consumers meet are in many ways highly
similar, if not identical, across class lines. And if people are in the same (or highly
similar) stores across class groups, then at least some key features of their
experiences cannot be very different. As customers of these stores, consumers
confront the same long or short lines, bright or dim lighting, ordered or chaotic store
displays, regardless of class position. To be sure, class (or other factors) may
influence how they feel about or react to those conditions (see further discussion
below), but the fact that across class categories consumers are, in many instances,
coping with the same external circumstances is important. The notion, that consumers
of the working classes (particularly, but not solely the poor) face highly inferior and
adverse conditions as consumers rests on class segregation and difference (i.e.,
inequality) in shopping experiences. In the present study, such patterns were not in
10 In some respects, the differences between my findings and those of other studies of poor or
working class consumers can be attributed to the fact that incidence of automobile ownership
was higher in my sample than in the population more generally. Indeed, as other studies have
indicated, the central factor restricting residents of poor communities from opting out of local
food, or other, markets is transportation (Allwitt and Donley 1997; Consumers Union 1993). That
my respondents (including the working class poor) did not live in conditions of concentrated
poverty, as is often the case for poor urban blacks (Massey and Denton 1993; Massey and
Eggers 1990) would also appear to be important in this regard.
In a somewhat different vein, issues regarding the particular geographic location
selected for the present study are likely relevant to these findings. By choosing an urban/semi
suburban (i.e., densely populated) geographic area in which residents from varied class
backgrounds reside, I eliminated the possibility that some of my respondents (but not others)
would have to travel great distances to reach particular retail stores. A study of the poor in
290
evidence. These findings would appear to reflect broader trends in the contemporary
retail scene.
The Power of Consumers: Coping with Problems in the Market
Another dimension of shopping experience that crosses class lines uncovered
in my research regards the power of consumers. In numerous accounts, consumers of
lower class groups have been depicted as essentially powerless consumers (Aaker
and Day 1978; Andreason 1975). As in the previous example, Caplovitz’s work has
also been influential in this regard. Caplovitz (1963) painted a portrait of lower class
consumers as largely unsophisticated in their dealings with retailers. When consumers
in his study were saddled with poor quality merchandise —as was frequently the
case— they were generally unable to secure compensation. Their own general lack of
sophistication combined with the unscrupulous (although, at the time, legal) tactics of
retailers often left these consumers with little redress.
This notion of (certain) consumers as powerless in anathema to popular
conceptions of what it means to be a consumer. In particular, customers —consumers
physically present at the retail site and potential buyers of goods— are seen as free to
exert their will. The understanding that “the customer is always right" is thought of as
universal. Again, the power of money —any customer’s money— is such that those
primed to make a purchase are in the driver’s seat.11 In addition, the whole aura of the
Appalachia, for example, would likely produce different results regarding issues of access to
retailers.
11 Customers who do not appear to store clerks to be “serious customers” (e.g., the young;
those shabbily [or otherwise inappropriately] dressed, etc.) may, indeed, be treated differently in
certain contexts than the “standard" clientele (see Feagin 1991 on the issue of race and the
treatment of customers). One working class and one upper-middle class respondent relayed
such stories. In each case, the consumer sensed that her casual appearance led store clerks to
presume (in the case of the working-class respondent, correctly) that she would be unable to
291
realm of consumption is one in which those persons making purchases (or, potentially
making purchases) (i.e., consumers) are the ones around whom the dream-like world
of consumption is centered. It is, after all, the realm of consumption, rather than
production. The consumer, in this arena, is king (or, more accurately, queen).
In order to assess the extent to which the power of consumers is linked to
class, below I consider the reactions of consumers to problems in the market. I explore
two types of problems. First, I consider reactions to what respondents viewed as poor
service. Second, I examine consumer experiences in returning unwanted or faulty
items. If, as consumers, the working class and working class poor lack power, one
would expect these respondents to evidence patterns of greater quiescence and
acceptance of affronts in the market than their upper-middle class counterparts. On
the contrary, if, in the realm of consumption, class has little (or no) effect on the power
held by consumers, then the working class and working class poor should be no less
willing or able to protest injustices or ill-treatment in the market.12
make a purchase. Though not the focus of the present analysis, it is noteworthy that such
incidents were not restricted to members of any class group.
12In considering the effects of class on consumer reactions to problems in the market, one must
first address the central question of what, precisely, constitutes a problem in the market. Indeed,
what one consumer might view as a problem (e.g., an item that falls apart after a few days of
use; inefficient service by a clerk; a small scratch on a newly purchased item) another might not
view in the same manner. These differences themselves may be class-related as the
expectations of consumers may themselves vary by class.
The problem, however, is that it is extremely difficult to ieam about that which
consumers do not characterize as problems. In other words, while it is possible to ask
respondents about problems they have encountered as consumers —asking, for example,
about specific types of experiences, such as returning purchased items, complaining to
managers, or simply feeling as if they had somehow been wronged— one cannot know from
such queries whether other experiences not viewed by the respondent as problematic (and
therefore not mentioned) would, by others, be considered as such. Indeed, problems of knowing
precisely what consumer reports of satisfaction actually mean plague researchers in the field of
consumer satisfaction. Two researchers summarize the difficulties this way: “Examination of the
satisfaction literature inevitably culminates in a pervasive yet inescapable conclusion —it is not
clear what customer satisfaction ratings are measuring" (Peterson and Wilson 1992: 69. See
also Woodruff 1993).
292
Findings in the present study suggest that class has little influence over the
power of consumers. Consumers of the working classes appeared no less willing or
able than those of the upper-middle class to exert their will in seeking redress for either
poor service or poor quality merchandise. Consider the experiences of working class
poor respondent. Frank Warner. Here, Frank relays an experience he had while
attempting to purchase a pair of sneakers for his son, Chris. His former wife had
requested the purchase:
Like I said, I call a spade a spade. . .One day, I think we might have
been at Kmart or something like that, but uh, I took Chris for a pair of
sneakers and it was just like one of these things, like, you know, ‘Dad, I
gotta have sneakers. Mom wants me to buy a new pair of sneakers.’
We go out to buy new sneakers. Went and got the sneakers and [I said
to the clerk], I was like, you know, These are on sale, right?’ ‘Yeah.’
Okay, we took these sneakers out of this section that [he’s] telling me
everything is on sale.
It did not go as expected:
Then when I get them up to the counter they’re telling me, ‘Ah, well
they’re not on sale. Somebody must have moved them.’ It’s like, 'Wait a
minute. The guy told me they’re on sale.’ ‘Oh, you’ll have to go get him.
And you’ll have to do th is .. . ’ It’s like, 7 don’t have to do a damn thing.
I'm the guy with the money. I'm the guy buying, {emphasis mine] I just
started to lose it. Finally, the guy came up and gave me the discount on
the sneakers. The girl rang them all up, I told [Chris], ‘Come on.’ ‘What
are you doing, Dad?’ I was like, ‘We’re getting the hell out of here.’
‘Don’t you want the sneakers?’ It’s like, ‘I would never buy another
friggin’ thing in this store.’ I mean, I said it loud enough so that people
could hear and [there was] a guy behind me, and he’s like, ‘Yeah, that’s
In the present discussion, I focus on problems faced by customers, as described by

respondents in this study. In interviews and during fieldwork, I asked respondents to tell me
about experiences of what they believe to be poor service. In addition, I asked about situations
in which they had problems with merchandise and what (if anything) they did to rectify the
situation. In doing so, I allowed respondents latitude to define problems in these regards while
grounding the discussion in concrete experience. Thus, I learned about the circumstances under
which they defined a situation as problematic. While such an approach cannot address every
type of situation which may arise, it does provide a way of comparing the experiences of
individuals and understanding the yardstick which they, as customers, apply.
293
right. We oughta get the h e ll.. . ’ It’s like, ‘It’s a palace revolt!’ [laughter].
But I mean, I let ‘em go through the whole nine yards. They put them
down this much. ‘I don’t need them,’ and walked out. Told ‘em, I was
like, ‘I don’t have to put up with this.’ You know, these people...
I: What did they do? What did the clerk say?
The girl was like, ‘Well, you know, we went and did this and we went
and did that. . .’ And it was like, ‘See ya. Good bye.’ Told [my son], I
was like, ‘Come on.’
I: Had they given you the sales price?
They gave me the sales price. I was just at the point of, it’s like, I don't
need to go through with this. I’m coming in here to spend my money.
They're gonna treat me right If they’re not gonna treat me right, I’m
gonna make their life fnggin’ miserable. [emphasis mine]
In this encounter, Frank’s annoyance seemed to stem from what he saw as ill-
treatment. Frank evidenced a sense of entitlement rooted, in particular, in his role as a
customer. The fact that the clerk expected him to track down her co-worker in order to
clear up the confusion on the price of the sneakers was clearly offensive to him (“I
don’t have to do nothing"). Frank felt that by virtue of his position as customer (“I’m the
guy with the money”) he should not be expected to perform such tasks. Frank’s
reaction to this situation could certainly be classified as obnoxious behavior. By
allowing the clerk to secure the sale price and ring up the order only to be told that
Frank no longer wanted the goods, Frank went beyond simple annoyance; he was
“ playing games” with the clerk. He made sure his intention to leave the store and not
make future purchases there was noted by other customers around him. Frank’s
reaction was not one of a powerless, quiescent consumer.
Frank suffered no serious loss as a result of his actions. Living in a major
metropolitan area with a plethora of retail options for sneaker purchases, Frank and his
son could easily go to another shop to secure the goods. Indeed, it is this very
294
recognition, that individuals can spend their money where they choose, which is the
cornerstone of customer power and control. As discussed in the previous section,
while some shopping done by the working class and working class poor was
conducted at stores catering all-but exclusively to individuals from these class groups
(e.g., the West Richmond grocery store), by no means was this the case with respect
to all categories of purchase. Each household had at least one car (see Table 2.20
and 2.21) and respondents in these groups frequently shopped outside of the
Richmond community. These consumers did not restrict their purchasing to particular
stores, be they within their neighborhood or further afield. Thus, as in the case of
Frank Warner, these consumers could (and did) defy the dictates of store personnel.
Frank rebuffed the Kmart clerk's suggestion that he secure information regarding the
price of sneakers from her co-worker. Indeed, consumers like Frank could (and did)
themselves make demands on retail clerks. As customers, these individuals
recognized themselves as having the power —or simply the ability— to take their
business elsewhere at little cost to them. In the present study, this recognition was not
restricted to members of any class group.
Artie Fallon (working class) provides another example of respondent from the
working classes acting on his sense of ill-treatment. In this instance, Artie was
shopping for shoes in a store in Founders’ Way Mall. Artie and his wife Debbie were in
the store together while their children, tired from walking about, sat outside the store.
Artie explained his experience this way:
I told [the clerk] what size shoe I wanted and when he tried to
put it on, it just didn’t fit right and he was telling me I was wrong.
It fit right, but it just didn’t feel right on my foot and he kept telling
me I was wrong. So, I got up and said ’Fine.’
295
I: What did he say?
I was trying to tell him that [the shoe] was too narrow. My foot was wide
and the shoe was a little narrow and it felt uncomfortable. He kept telling
me I was wrong, that it should fit right. I kept telling him, ‘No,’ he’s
wrong. He said, ‘No.’ I said, The customer is right and I’m the customer
and I’m right' [emphasis mine]. I put my shoe back on and told him he
could, ‘Kiss my ass, I'll never see you in this store again, because I
won’t stop in.’
I: And what he did say?
He just looked at me and I walked out...l didn’t care. And I called him an
asshole, since the kids were outside. Debbie just looked at me and I
said, ‘Well I’m right and I’m leaving’...She didn’t care. You know, if he
doesn't want to believe me, then I’ll just go on and leave. [emphasis
mine]
As with Frank, Artie’s protest was couched in terms of his position as customer (“I’m
the customer and I’m right”). In doing so, Artie made clear his understanding that as
the customer, he enjoys a special status that should prevent such questioning of his
abilities.
In other instances, working class and working class poor respondents acted in
a less belligerent fashion, yet their behavior still evidenced an understanding that they
were free to spend their money where and how they chose. Randi Estobar, for
example, walked out of an electronics store when the salespeople who were helping
her with her purchase abandoned her for long periods of time as they tended to other
customers. Randi had come to the store to purchase a specific television set which she
had seen advertised as on sale. She was in a large, discount chain when these events
transpired:
The store was busy and the salesman was waiting on me but this other
person too and then somebody else came in and I said ‘But I, you know,
you’re working [with me]. . .’ and I had four or five kids with me [that
day] and, and they had this TV [I wanted] but it didn’t have a remote
296
[control], it was in an open crate and I said ‘I was gonna buy the stereo
too. Now, you guys, I’m leavin'P
Rather than wait longer and accept the poor service, Randi left the store. This,
however, did not mean that Randi would not get the items she wanted. Knowing that
Caldor, a discount store at which Randi regularly shops, offers to “beat any
competitor’s price," she took the advertisement there.
I went to Caldor with [the other store’s] sale paper and bought the same
TV that Caldor had advertised for four hundred dollars for American
Appliance’s price of two hundred and fifty or something like that and,
and I bought a CD box, you know, with the cassette. . . I said [to the
woman at Caldor] This TV, this model, look at this price’ [showing her
the advertisement The woman said ‘Okay,’ she rung it up, I paid, we
were gone.
In this instance, Randi demonstrates a bit of consumer savvy. Far from rolling
over and passively accepting the service (or lack thereof) provided by the initial
retailer, Randi not only refused to remain in an unhelpful situation, but took advantage
of another store’s policy to get what she wanted. Randi had prior knowledge about
Caldoris policy and used it to her advantage. In this way, Randi’s behavior clearly
reflects a recognition that her position as a consumer provides her with the option to
abandon an undesirable situation. Randi’s, as well as Artie and Frank’s, experience
illustrates the fact that working class and working class poor consumers in the study
exerted their will when faced with what they viewed as poor service.
However, working class and working class poor consumers were not alone in
their practices of protest. While there was some indication that such affronts were less
frequent in the lives of upper-middle class consumers, they were by no means absent.
297
At times, upper-middle class consumers too invoked the “I’m the consumer" mantra
when their wishes were not satisfactorily met. Cindy Dexter, for example, expressed
annoyance at the aggressiveness of salespeople involved in a furniture purchase she
made. Although the salespeople suggested application of a protective coating for both
the couch and the chair the Dexters were purchasing, Cindy and Dave elected to have
only one item treated. She did not appreciate the disapproving attitude conveyed by
the salespeople:
Urn, I don’t mind when they ask [about extras] but when they ask like
two or three times, you know, it’s like, ‘I don’t want this. Get over it.’
I: Did that happen with something that you bought?
Urn, it might have happened on [pause], I know, on the couch. They

really pushed to get them Scotchguarded or something, I don't know. Or
like, we got [one piece] done and we didn’t want [the other] done cause
we didn’t think that would last as long and they were like ‘Well, you’re
gonna do one and not the other?’ [imitating in a tone of mild incredulity,
implying foolishness]. I was like ‘Yeah. It’s my decision. Shut up. I’m the
consumer, you moron.’
It is unlikely that Cindy actually called the salesperson a “moron" or even told
him/her to “shut up” in those precise words. Cindy’s agreeable demeanor would seem
to indicate that these rather harsh words were meant to convey her thoughts during
these events rather than actual utterances. Indeed, regardless of whether she actually
said such things to the salesperson, Cindy’s thoughts were clearly of this ilk. She saw
the questioning of her decision as inappropriate. Thus, similar to Artie, Cindy does not
expect to have her judgement questioned when acting as a customer (“I’m the
customer, you moron"). Though she apparently did not view the infraction as serious
enough to warrant termination of the purchase, she nonetheless recognized the
298
situation as problematic and secured the result she desired (i.e., having just one of the
pieces treated).
Another upper-middle class respondent, Don Tallinger, relayed numerous “poor
service stories,” as he called them, during interviews and fieldwork. Although Don did
not express the same “I’m the consumer" bravado that others did, he nevertheless
made a point of ceasing to shop at stores where he felt the service was wanting. One
example involved a video store:
They have, like, for kids’ movies if you rent one you get one free. We
did that and also got a non-kid movie and I guess we didn’t bring it back
the next day, we brought it back 2 days later. So they decided since we
didn’t bring it back the very next day it wasn’t get-one-free. They
charged us for all of them which, personally, it didn’t say that anywhere
and the person at the counter never said ‘it has to be back tomorrow.’
I: Did you say something to the clerk?
Yeah, I said something. Well, when they said whatever the bill was,
nineteen dollars, it was ‘What are you talking about? It should only be’
whatever it is, five dollars.’ ‘Well, no, you gotta pay th e .. . ’ [and I said]
‘Well, no, it’s buy one get one free.' ‘Oh no. You have to have it back
the next day.’ [grimace/sigh of annoyance] Now we get our movies at
[another store].. .That was the last time [I went there].
Here, Don simply voiced his annoyance and requested the cheaper price he saw as
appropriate. When that failed, he ceased patronizing that shop.
In another incident, Don became annoyed at the attitude of the service provider
at a local gas station. Again, Don did not engage in a drawn out discussion with this
individual, but managed to convey his sentiments, nonetheless:
There’s a gas station in the center of [Sylvan’s commercial district] that I

don’t go to anymore. We used to have car that took diesel fuel, and they
were like the only diesel station in the very immediate area, and they
charged about four times as much, so I didn’t use them much to begin
with, but sometimes you just had to have it But the guy was one of
299
those type of people that just [short pause], I put twenty dollars worth of
gas in one day and the pump went to twenty dollars and one cent. I
gave him a twenty dollar bill and he said ‘It’s twenty dollars and one
cent.’ [Pause. Grimace]. So I gave another twenty dollar bill [Pause.
Don makes a broad, exaggerated smile]. And he changed the twenty for
a penny. And I never went back there.
Although Don took a more subtle tack than Frank or Artie in expressing his
displeasure, his actions were not altogether different from those taken by his working
class counterparts. In Don’s case, it was the attendant’s unwillingness to extend a
simple courtesy —waiving one cent from the bill— coupled with both the general
practice of charging high prices and the all-around lack of goodwill on the part of the
attendant that propelled Don into instituting a personal boycott on the shop. In giving
the attendant another twenty dollar bill, Don was being obnoxious in a way reminiscent
of (working class poor) Frank Warner in his attempt to purchase sneakers for his son.
Don felt that this was the most effective way of expressing his displeasure as a
consumer:
My method is, I figure it doesn’t do a lot of good to get angry so I figure

the only way I can get even is if I just don’t patronize them anymore. I
just don’t go there again.
Thus, upper-middle class consumers such as Don are clearly not immune to
problems with service at the hands of retail. Don had no difficulty naming several
stores in Sylvan Valley’s main shopping district which he refused to patronize for
reasons of service (e.g., the video shop, the gas station, a nearby supermarket). In this
way, there was little indication that consumers in the more affluent community were
treated to a markedly higher level of service than was the case in the less affluent
300
parts of town (in which greater concentrations of working class and working class poor
respondents lived).
Poor service is not the only thing that can go wrong with a purchase.
Customers sometimes have problems with the merchandise itself once they have left
the store. In these instances, consumers can either accept the faulty merchandise or
bring it back to the retailer for restitution. Again, in the present study there was little
evidence of notable class difference in this regard. Upper-middle class, working class
and working class poor consumers alike displayed a willingness to return items that did
not work as they should. Working class and working class poor respondents did not
appear to have a more difficult time in this regard than their upper-middle class
counterparts.
Indeed, the store (frequented by study respondents) with seemingly the most
liberal of return policies was the discount store, Rosebud, located in Lower Richmond.
As noted above, although patronized by respondents from across the class spectrum,
this store was a mainstay in the lives of Richmond’s working class and working class
poor residents. Rosebud's policy was to accept merchandise for exchange regardless
of whether the customer had a receipt or the store tags. The staff at the store rarely
questioned customers about exchanges. When I asked Mary Ellen Gaskel (working
class) about returning purchases, she told me about the Rosebud policy:
Well, Rosebud used to be fantastic cause you could take anything and
everything back to there...it used to be that you could take back
anything you want. After Christmas, if you got a gift and it didn’t have a
receipt and Rosebud had it, you could return it.
301
When I spoke to Mary Ellen, Rosebud was in the process of modifying their policy to a
more standard one, requiring some documentation when making exchanges or giving
refunds (understandably so, given Mary Ellen’s comment about returning good bought
elsewhere to that store!). For many years, however, Rosebud’s customers enjoyed the
benefits of a virtually trouble-free return policy.
Other working class and working class poor respondents also remarked on the
ease of returning problem purchases at this store. Linda Yanelli, for example, had a
series of problems with a camera purchase she made. Still, she met with no resistance
when returning the faulty merchandise:
A lot of times, I took things back and didn’t have a receipt and they said:
’No problem, as long as you got the packaging from Rosebud’...l bought
a camera in there one time, and it was broken. I took it back —I didn’t
have a receipt— and they gave me another camera. The camera was
broke again. And I took it back again, and they said: ‘No problem!’ and
gave me another camera. The third camera was broke! I couldn’t
believe it! I said: ‘I can’t believe this camera is broke!’ I said: ‘I’m not
taking it back!’ And Bill said Take it back, take it back! It’s not your
fault!’ You know, ‘there’s something wrong with these cameras, every
time.’ The next time I took it back, again, ‘No problem’ again. And I told
them: ‘Yous are so good on returns! I love it! Yous are great on returns!’
I: So what did they say when you brought it in?
I just told them it doesn’t work. They act like they don’t even
care. They just say ‘Pick another one.’
The fourth camera proved to be in good working order and Linda was satisfied with her
purchase. The fact that three cameras of this type proved faulty and that Linda
continued to accept replacements (rather than to simply get her money back and/or
opt for a different model) raise questions about both the quality of goods on offer at the
store and Linda’s expectations for merchandise quality. Nevertheless, the fact that
Linda did not simply accept the problematic goods and that store personnel presented
302
no roadblock to rectification of Linda’s problems, contrast with images of working class
consumers as victims, wronged in the marketplace. Though the merchandise was
apparently of poor quality, Linda was not saddled with a broken camera.
Indeed, the general feeling among respondents across the class spectrum was
that problematic purchases could usually be brought back to a store with little difficulty.
Rosebud was not, of course, the only store with which these consumers had contact.
While other stores may have had slightly more stringent policies, respondents still did
not experience difficulties returning problematic purchases:
...most of the other stores are really pretty good about it if you have a
receipt or if it still has their tag on it. They’re pretty good about it. So, no,
there’s really no headache about returning things.
Mary Ellen Gaskel (working class
Indeed, with bar codes the norm, most stores are able to scan tagged merchandise
regardless of whether the actual price is on the item. A working class poor woman who
received an unwanted gift had no difficulties when she attempted to exchange the item
several months after it was purchased. Mary was not enamored by the suit her mother
had bought for from a large, national department store:
They said ‘Why are you bringing it back?’ I said ‘Well, first of all it’s
purple. Second of all, it’s two sizes too big now. I’ve lost a lot of weight.’
and this was like three months later [that] I returned it. ‘And,’ I said ‘I
don't have the receipt.’ Urn, so I got the store credit...
Mary delighted in using the credit she was issued. She bought a variety of casual
clothes for herself.
I: So, they didn’t give you a hard time? Did they give you a hard time at
all?
303
No. Not at all. Because it still had tags on it. Their prices were on it.
They just scanned it. And it comes up sale price, so.
Other respondents who had problems with broken or faulty merchandise did
display more forceful responses than that taken by Linda Yanelli with her camera. One
working class poor respondent who herself has little occasion to return purchased
goods (“I don’t really buy that much, you know, to take it back. You can’t take food
back and that’s basically all I buy”) did, however, describe the experiences of her older
daughters who “return things all the time,” generally because they have changed their
minds about a purchase. In contrast to Linda Yanelli’s gratitude for being greeted with
a no-hassle return policy at Rosebud, Janet’s adult daughter Karen (working class,
married, mother of one) takes on a less tolerant attitude. As Janet explained, in this
example, Karen could not be satiated with a replacement of the faulty item:
...I'll tell you, has she got a mouth on her.
I: Why? What happens with her?
She ordered something by mail, urn, from JCPenney, a comforter set

and it had the sheets to match with the bed ruffle and the...Well, the
bed ruffle decided to rip and she, she was pissed. And she said
I: You mean she had it for a little bit and then it ripped?
Yeah. Well, I guess about three days. It started ripping and, uh, she
called up and they said ’Well, just send the dust ruffle back.’ you know,
the part [that was ripping]. She said 'Oh no. You’re gettin’ the whole
thing back. I don’t want it.’ I mean, she tells them straight up, you know,
‘I do not want it. I want my money back’ you know, and that’s all there is
to it.
Here, Janet's daughter evidences behavior that suggests she has high expectations
for the goods she purchases. She is unwilling to keep any part of the item when just
one piece of it has shown signs of poor construction. In this way, Karen displays a
304
more demanding posture as a customer than was evident with Linda. Both, however,
were able to satisfactorily resolve their respective problems.
As stated above, just as with the previous discussion of problems with service,
there was little notable class difference in consumers’ resolution of problem purchases.
In considering the experiences of upper-middle class respondents, we see largely the
same types of trouble-free experiences. Peggy Hopewell (upper-middle class) provides
one example. During one of our interviews, Peggy explained how she is a regular
shopper at her local Gap store. Five minutes from the house, she likes the
convenience of the store and can buy clothing for all of her children (aged three to
fourteen) at the one location. As frequent customers, Peggy says the sales clerks
know her and her children. The ease of returning unwanted or faulty items is seen as a
plus:
They take everything back. If [the kids] bring it home and decide they
don’t like it I can bring it right back the next day or three weeks from
now and they take it back and it is not a problem...! do it a lot, fairly
often. And if something, you know, wears out more than it, faster than it
should, then I’ll take it back.
I: Can you give me an example? Has that come up?
I can't remember what it was. Yes I do. I bought Will [my eleven year-
old] an expensive blue jean jacket for sixty dollars and when he tried to
open it the pocket it pulled right out of the jacket. And he’d had it for a
week and so I took it back and they took it right back. Got me another
one.
There appears to be little difference between Peggy’s experience and that of Linda
Yanelli with her problematic camera.
Interestingly, however, Peggy indicated an impression that she would have a
more difficult time at other, presumably less-expensive stores. She ended her remarks
305
by saying “I only go places that it's not a problem..." Although by no means exclusively,
several upper-middle class respondents spoke of patronizing smaller, (presumably)
more expensive shops in order to avoid difficulties with problem merchandise. Steve
Mandel told me about his thinking on this matter. For Steve, buying better brands at
better stores was seen as a means of avoiding problems. It was a means of reducing
the risks —as he perceived them— associated with acquisition:
I will pay a little more for good service. That’s basically the kind of
person I am. And I'll go out and buy the best thing rather than buy, you
know, a little less expensive thing. I went out and bought the best
treadmill and my treadmill broke and [the retailer] had to completely,
they tried three or four different things to do, you know to change to
make it better and they still didn’t make it better. So they gave me a
whole new treadmill, no charge. Because number one I probably paid a
lot, a little bit more for the treadmill but I went to a place that I knew
could give me the service that they gave me. And they didn’t charge me
one cent [extra] for a two thousand dollar treadmill.
Judging from the experiences of customers patronizing less expensive stores, the
accuracy of Steve’s impression that the assistance he received from this retailer was
superior to what he would have received elsewhere is not clear. While he may not
have received assistance with repairs, returning the faulty item would not necessarily
have been a more challenging task at another location. Indeed, those respondents
who did make purchases in discount stores did not generally encounter problems in
this regard. Thus, while upper-middle class respondents may have, at times, paid more
for goods under the impression that better service would be forthcoming, it is not clear
that this resulted in markedly better experiences than those of working class
customers.
306
Both these findings and those of the previous section (on class-integrated and
“no class" shopping) call into question the notion that consumers of lower class groups
are at a disadvantage in their dealings with retailers. My findings on consumer
reactions to problems in the market suggest that rather than “the poor pay more" the
notion of “consumer is king" is more accurate. These consumers evidenced neither a
tendency to accept poor service nor a reluctance to return undesirable merchandise.
Recent studies of consumer complaining behavior support this notion of the
classless/powerful consumer. These studies indicate that socioeconomic status
variables (e.g., income, education, occupation, (combined) SES measures) add little to
our understanding of how consumers define and respond to problems in the market
(Nelson 1986; McNeil et al 1979). Several factors would appear to be linked to these
findings.
For one, working class and working class poor consumers in the study did have
options as to where they spent their retail dollars. Other studies that have found the
poor, in particular, to be disadvantaged as consumers have stressed the importance of
segregated shopping patterns and the difficulties encountered by such consumers in
accessing markets outside of their local area. However, neither working class nor
working class poor consumers in the present study confined themselves to
neighborhood stores of which they might be considered a captive market. Indeed, as
noted in the previous section, class segregated shopping patterns were by no means
the norm.13
13 It should be noted that even if the working class or working class poor in the study did confine
themselves to local (or other) stores, this would not necessarily result in quiescent behavior. As
Hirschman (1970) argued, consumers in such circumstances may very well “voice" their
displeasure all the more vociferously. Consumers with few alternatives (including the poor, those
in developing economies, those living in communist countries) have the “maximum incentive to
307
Relatedly, to the extent that consumers shopped at the same stores across
class lines, consumers met with the same store policies. Generally, these policies
tended to be “hassle-free." And to the extent that there was what might be described
as a “working class store” (i.e., Rosebud), this location proved to have one of the most
liberal return policies imaginable. Thus, working class and working class poor
consumers were not disadvantaged in this regard.
Additionally, consumers of the current era are generally better educated, better
protected and, to some extent, better served (by retailers) in their role as consumers
than was the case even thirty years ago. A wide array of legislative initiatives—
undoubtedly spurred, at least in part, by Caplovitz’s work— have been put in place
since the 1960s in an effort to regulate the practices of retailers. These consumer
protection laws have themselves done much to reduce the prevalence of unscrupulous
practices in retail (Best 1981; Jones and Gardner 1976; Murray 1973). In addition to
the protection afforded (to all consumers) by such laws, consumers today are better
educated about their rights when acting under this guise. Knowledge about lemon laws
and other consumer protections is widespread, albeit imperfect (Haefner and
Leckenby 1975). In my study, working class and working class poor consumers
peppered their comments about various retailers with language indicative of their
status as “educated consumers.” Some mentioned stores that were reputed for
practicing “bait and switch.” One referred to the “lemon law” that helped her get a
refund on a faulty car.
cajole, threaten, and otherwise induce the firm to pay attention to his needs and tastes"
(1970:65-6). Those with the opportunity to “exit,” can and often will do so, leaving less
advantaged consumers behind to voice their displeasure. The fact that no consumers in the
present study were part of a captive market (i.e., all could and many did exercise the “exit"
option), makes it impossible to test Hirschman’s theory here.
308
Of course, not everything about consumer reactions to problems in the market
is the same across class lines. For example, while upper-middle class, working class
and working class poor consumers alike invoked the “I’m the consumer" mantra,
respondents from working class groups appeared to do so in a more heated fashion.
These respondents seemed to interpret the behavior of clerks as constituting a
personal affront. Some of these respondents, seemed particularly troubled when clerks
questioned their knowledge or authority or failed to afford them the respect they felt
they, as customers, deserved. This was particularly true of working class and working
class poor men in the study.
Such bravado on the part of male working class consumers may be linked to
their lack of authority in other realms of life. Rubin (1976:99) for example, argues that
authoritarianism among working class men at home (vis a vis their wives and children)
is linked to their lack of authority and power in their work lives.14 In a similar vein, the
greater bravado exhibited by working class and working class poor men as customers,
may also be seen as an extension of the “authority deprivation” in their work lives. For
them, acting as a consumer/customer, provides them with a somewhat unique
opportunity to be in a position of power. Men with professional backgrounds, who are
afforded respect and authority in their work lives, have less invested being treated
“properly” as customers.
It is difficult to say whether this phenomenon is actually at work in the realm of
consumption (or, for that matter, in the home). Contrary to Rubin’s suggestion, one
might expect professional men to expect a higher level of treatment and respect
precisely because they are accustomed to such treatment in other realms. While
14On issues of class and authority and power at work see Kohn (1977).
309
certainly a plausible explanation, it is not at all clear that the increased bravado
displayed by some working class and working class poor consumers results from a
contrary situation in their work lives.
My point, however, is a more basic one. While there may be some differences
in the degree or type of reaction, the broad parameters of respondents’ reactions
across the class spectrum were highly similar. As with upper-middle class
respondents, working class and working class poor accounts did not indicate
acceptance of ill-treatment or undesirable merchandise. The quiescent consumers
encountered by Caplovitz and others were not in evidence in this research.
Shopping: Loving it, Hating It, Doing It
A final area worth noting in which the influence of class appears to be of little or
no consequence regards attitudes toward and feelings about “shopping.” In this
discussion, I am concerned with the activities that take place at the shops, at the
moment of purchase (or attempted purchase). Some people gladly refer to what they
do in this regard as “shopping." They may enjoy the leisurely aspects of it, the
opportunity to get out of the house, the visual stimulation offered by store design and
product layout. Others take a more instrumental tack toward their efforts to secure
goods. Such individuals often scoff at the idea that their actions constitute shopping at
all. Indeed, in reference to the “other purposeness" associated with “shopping,” such
individuals often refuse to categorize their efforts as “shopping.” Of course, it is rare for
a consumer to be wholly consistent in his or her attitudes toward and definitions of
shopping (or “buying things"). As I show below, even those who express distaste for
310
the activities of shopping generally, tend to have at least some categories of goods or
circumstances under which such activities are experienced as pleasurable.15
In the present study I found no evidence that class was a major influence over
the degree or even circumstances under which respondents found shopping
pleasurable (or not).18 Positive and negative attitudes toward shopping were evident
throughout the sample. Perhaps more importantly, the issues to which respondents
pointed as responsible for their impressions were not, for the most part, class issues.
As I show below, things like the sociability, the pride, and even the humiliation that, at
times, comes with shopping were oftentimes linked to issues that have little or nothing
to do with class.
Evidence of the classless nature of respondents' attitudes toward and
experiences of shopping came in a variety of forms. For example, in talking to
respondents about shopping, notably similar chords were struck by members of
different classes in explaining what about shopping they found enjoyable or distasteful.
Dave Dexter (upper-middle class) and Ray Gaskel (working class), for example, both
spoke of the “relaxing” aspects of shopping. Each regarded regularly occum'ng family
15As noted in previous chapters, although not all of those who enjoy shopping manage to find
the time or money to partake in this activity, this does not mean that they do not find the
experience pleasurable.
16A number of researcher studies have developed typologies of shoppers as “leisure shoppers”
“instrumental shoppers" “thirfty shoppers” etc. While in some of these typologies, class
categories do coincide rather neatly with the “types” noted (Stone 1954; Bellenger and
Korgaokar 1980) this is not always the case (Lunt and Livingstone 1992). As others have
pointed out (Miller et al 1998:22), the usefulness of such typologies is questionable, particularly
since these typologies tend to create distinctions between shopper characteristics that are not
necessarily mutually exclusive. For example, in Lunt and Livingstone’s (1992) typology shoppers
who are counted among the “thrifty" are excluded from being considered “leisure” shoppers, or
“careful” shoppers.
311
trips to the nearby Sylvangate Mall as a time when they could “get away.” Ray
explained what he liked about shopping at the mall this way:
It’s relaxing, you know.
I: Can you tell me about that, about it being relaxing? What is it that
makes it relaxing to you?
Well, you’re just somewhere different, you know. You’re away from all
that, the phone ringing and all the, I guess noise and, you know. It’s like
you’re getting away but you’re not really getting away.
Upper-middle class Dave Dexter (non-profit organization administrator, mam'ed, father
of three) shared similar sentiments regarding mall trips:
I use shopping as sort of a stress relief. I mean, it’s a way for me to just
get out, nobody can get me \giggie], for the most part. Unless, I swear
to God, there’s one of the kids [from the Center] everywhere.
Dave’s work as an educational and recreational center administrator involves a high
degree of interaction with others. He is regularly called upon to resolve problems and
keep the center’s activities running smoothly. Though Dave enjoys his work, he does
find it “stressful” and views shopping as a relaxing change of pace. While Ray does not
cite his job (as a tow-truck driver) as particularly stressful, he similarly regards the mall
is a place where he can “get away." For him, it is from the constant phone ringing
(generally for one of his three sons) and activity of everyday life.17 Thus, while the
nature of that from which these consumers seek relaxation may differ, each considers
the calming influence of shopping to be part of what makes it a positive experience for
17Another working class respondent, Artie Fallon did view the relaxing qualities of shopping as
an antidote to work-related stress: “Sometimes I just go out [shopping] and I’m relaxed.
Sometimes just walking around relaxes me, getting out of work and stuff."
312
them. Despite class differences, these consumers find shopping enjoyable for
essentially the same reasons.
For consumers like Jane Lawton (upper-middle class) and Mary Ellen Gaskel
(working class), shopping is part of their job as full-time caregivers to their families.18
Jane and Mary Ellen both spoke of enjoying this aspect of their work. In particular, the
challenge involved in obtaining goods, either at “the right price" or simply “the right
thing," were seen by both as a positive aspects of shopping. Jane put it this way:
I like the chase. I like looking around for stuff. [Unlike my husband], I
don’t get tired in malls, at all. He just has to get out of the store as
quickly as he can cause he just gets tired and bored, whereas I don’t.
As a matter of fact, I do much better shopping indoors. I can last much
longer looking around for stuff or staying and going, finding a pair of
shoes. So, yeah, I enjoy doing th a t.. .I like the hunt.
In particular, Jane likes “hunting” for old pieces of furniture at good prices. She used to
frequent estate sales in search of “interesting" pieces at bargain prices. While getting a
good bargain has not been a necessity for Jane for some time, she still gets pleasure
from “hunting” until she finds what she wants “cheap." Indeed, Jane “refuses to pay top
dollar" for many types of goods (e.g., appliances, some clothing, some furnishings)
and finding “good stuff at good prices" leaves her feeling positive about herself and her
shopping savvy. She spoke about her feelings after purchasing a deeply discounted
couch:
18 Mary Ellen does work the night shift every other weekend in a nursing home. However, her
primary responsibilities regard taking care of her family and she considers herself a “stay at
home mom.”
313
After buying something [like that]...I'll just feel real virtuous for a couple
of days. That’s why I enjoy putting in the extra legwork towards getting
good stuff cheap.... And I sleep well after a day of, you know, coming
home with something neat. It gives me satisfaction.
Jane sees virtually all types of shopping as enjoyable. It is part of her role of taking
care of her family. As she put it, “it’s what I do". Even food shopping, seen as an
unpleasant task by many, is viewed as enjoyable by Jane:
I might as well enjoy it just cause, I mean, it has to be done. I always

wanted a big family, I’ve got one so I’d better not bitch and whine about
the day to day feeding the little guys. Urn, yeah, I enjoy it because
\pause] I might as well [sm/7e].
In a similar vein, Mary Ellen Gaskel (working class) also spoke of the
enjoyment she gets from shopping for various types of goods. Like Jane, Mary Ellen
rejected the image of shopping as “drudgery” that others sometimes suggest. While
price considerations were more imperative to Mary Ellen’s “hunt” than was true of
Jane, both respondents experienced shopping as a positive challenge at which they
excelled.
...[Even with] food shopping, it’s a necessity but I feel it’s a challenge,
yet I feel good about it. I mean, if I walk out and I know I’ve saved
twenty-two dollars in coupons, to me that’s something I’ve really worked
at. But I don’t mind [shopping]. I enjoy it...‘Cause I really, it’s not that
chore that other people make it sound as if. It’s really not, the
drudgery...! like being home. I like taking care of [my family].
As with Jane, Mary Ellen viewed shopping as both a challenge and as part of the work
she did in taking care of her family (DeVault 1991). Both invoked almost combat-like
language in describing their approach to shopping. While Jane spoke of “the hunt” and
314
“the chase, Mary Ellen described “the challenge” of “conquering a battle.” Again, this
was seen by both as a positive aspect of shopping. As Mary Ellen explained:
I usually feel good [after shopping] because I’ve usually conquered a

battle. I’ve found something on sale, cheaper than I thought I would and
everybody’s usually happy with the purchase. Because I do shop that
way.Jooking around and all...l probably did find it in our price range and
we did come home with [what we wanted]. So, yeah, it’s usually good.
Thus, despite class differences, each of these women saw shopping in a positive light,
as a challenge to be met. Though the character of the challenge was not precisely the
same for each, they nevertheless shared a basic view of shopping as an opportunity to
achieve a goal while enjoying oneself. Each took pride in their abilities in achieving
their goals. While it was true that securing a bargain was more important for Mary
Ellen than for Jane, this was only part of what these consumers were doing in
obtaining goods. The general parameters of their experiences had much in common.
The fact that they approached shopping from different class positions did not mean
that everything about their experience differed.
In these examples, we can see how individuals in different class positions can
indeed have similar experiences as consumers. Like upper-middle class Dave Dexter,
working class Ray Gaskel experiences shopping as relaxing. For both Mary Ellen
Gaskel and Jane Lawton, shopping is a challenge and a positive one at that.
Nevertheless, it should be clear that it is not only the fact that members of different
classes share similar experiences (e.g., finding shopping relaxing or a challenge) that
renders class largely without influence in this regard. Also important is the fact that the
issues cited by consumers as responsible for their enjoyment (or displeasure)
315
generally have little to do with class. Indeed, the issues influencing respondents’
feelings were, for the most part, not class issues.
In a slightly different vein, for some consumers, shopping was viewed positively
because it represented time spent with family members or other loved ones (e.g.,
Lehtonen and MSenpSa 1997; Prus 1993). In these instances, shopping was generally
treated as a leisure activity, even if the trip had a clear material purpose as well. One
respondent, Linda Yanelli (working class), spoke about the occasional shopping trips
she takes with her mother as “mom and daughter time." While she is somewhat
ambivalent about these trips —feeling as if she ends up looking at items in which only
her mother is interested (Prus 1993)— she, nevertheless welcomes the opportunity to
get out of the house and spend time with her mom. Linda and her mother often go to
Rosebud or Founder’s Way Mall:
I guess it’s more or less just to get out. Get away from my dad, get
away from Billy, [spend some] mom and daughter time. [We do it] more
so in the winter. Like on Sundays when it’s cold and there’s nothing to
do, and they’re watching football. A lot of times, we do that.
For Linda, shopping is generally viewed as pleasurable and doing so with her mom is
another way of enjoying the browsing about and “finding bargains" she enjoys.
For others, however, shopping is not generally viewed as an enjoyable way to
spend time. In such instances, the social aspects of shopping can make an otherwise
distasteful experience enjoyable. Gerald Naughton (working class poor), for example,
spoke of how he and his father will occasionally shop together for appliances or
electronic items. Gerald’s father feels confident in his son’s knowledge about such
goods and always asks him along:
316
[Shopping is] okay, like, when I go with my dad. It’s the outing, being
with my father I like. I would rather it be us walking along Greenway
Park than walking around in Silo’s but things like that seem to be the
only way that me and him get together. As far as the shopping part
itself, no, I’m not interested in that.
As Gerald’s sentiments reveal, other opportunities for spending time together would
also be welcome, but somehow they just do not happen. Social and cultural
proscriptions against men’s expressions of love for each other or even the desire to
simply be together make it difficult for sons like Gerald to interact with their fathers in a
“purposeless” setting (Osherson1993; Walker 1994). Although generally seen as a
woman’s domain, shopping for certain categories of good (e.g., large appliances,
electronics, hardware) provides a socially appropriate reason for men like Gerald and
his father to spend time together.
In another household, Louise Tallinger (upper-middle class) reported that
although she generally likes to go shopping, time constraints severely limit the amount
of shopping she does. Between a busy work schedule and a full roster of sports
activities in which her three sons participate, Louise’s shopping is almost always
purpose-driven (see Chapter Five). Nevertheless, Louise warmly spoke of a family
tradition in which family members spend afternoons shopping about with no particular
purpose in mind. While she does not spend much time shopping these days, Louise
does occasionally “shop” this way with her mother.
I: And do you like going with your mother o r...
Uh huh [emphatic nod]. Oh yeah. Yeah. We have a good, we have a

family expression that my grandmother started. We call it ‘ goin’ tootin’ ‘
[smile]. We’re just gonna go shop and not [necessarily] buy anything
[shrug] or just go out...The kids will probably end up goin’ tootin’ with
Nana [too].
317
As Louise suggests, these “shopping trips" are not always “buying trips.” They are, by
definition largely aimless ventures. Sometimes they include lunch or maybe a stop at
an antiques auction where Louise’s mother might pick up a few items for her small
business. Although organized principally around shopping, the purchase of goods is
not central to these “ tootin’ " afternoons. Instead, the idea is to be out and to be
together.
Perhaps it is true across cultures and time that when people come together
they prefer to do so around an event of one kind or another. Indeed, the meals or cups
of coffee around which social occasions are so often centered provide a foundation for
our interludes; somehow, simply talking and spending time together is not enough. In
late twentieth century America (and elsewhere), with public space and indeed, public
life dominated by arenas of consumption it is not surprising that shopping has become
one of the principal venues for social interaction (Sandiki and Holt 1998; Goss 1993).
Indeed, even shoppers who go to malls and other retail forms “alone” point to the
social atmosphere of these sites as central to their shopping experience (Lehtonen
and MSenpaa 1997; Miller et al. 1998). The desire to spend time with our loved ones
(or others) is not an issue of class, but of contemporary (American) life more generally.
In my research with families in the Sylvan and Richmond communities, I found no
evidence that the use of shopping as a way of spending time with friends and family
was limited to members of any particular class group.
Related to the issues of shopping as a social time for “being together," in
households with young children, shopping is sometimes viewed by parents as a way of
amusing children when they are bored or simply of an age that demands constant
318
monitoring and attention. Several parents with children below age five spoke of taking
them on shopping errands as “an activity." For example, each Saturday, George
Hopewell brings his two youngest children, Vivian, four and a half, and Caroline three,
along with him as he runs his weekly errands (e.g., picking up dry cleaning, stopping at
the hardware store for grass seed, going to the drug store for razors etc.). George
spoke about this as a way to “entertain the children, just run them around for a couple
of hours." Clearly George could accomplish these tasks without having Vivian and
Caroline along, but by taking them with him he is able to occupy them for the morning
and thus, give his wife Peggy a needed “break." It also allows him to be with his
daughters, enjoying some time with them.
Other parents also spoke of shopping as providing both an activity for the
children and a way for the family to accomplish a task while spending time together.
During one of our interviews, Steve Mandel (upper-middle class) told me about how he
saw shopping as generally a “waste of time." He prefers to spend his weekends doing
“family activities" with his wife and three children, (ages eight, five and one) such as
riding bikes or going to a movie. Still, Steve recognized some types of shopping as
enjoyable and providing an activity for his young family:
Even food shopping is a family activity for all five of us.J’m there,
basically, to carry the packages and bag the packages and the kids are
there to get what they want [laugh]. But it’s, an activity. That happens
twice a month or three times a month that all of us go like on a
Saturday...Saturday or Sunday. And we just get what we want and you
make a time of it. You know, we’ll go out for lunch or something
afterwards or before and, you know, just try to be productive in what
we’re doing together, rather than separately.Jt’s a way of occupying
them and doing what we need to do.
319
Interestingly, other parents took a quite different view of taking young children
shopping. Rather than view it in a positive light as an activity or form of entertainment
for them, some parents regarded having the children along as a burden. Indeed, just
as Steve Mandel laughed about his children’s requests during food shopping trips (“the
kids are there to get what they want”) Don Tallinger, also an upper-middle class
parent, reported that he tends to leave his youngest son, Chris (age five) at home for
the same reason. According to Don, “the danger with Chris is he always wants a lot of
stuff we would not advise. So we try not to tale Chris." For other parents, children were
viewed as “a distraction” (Peggy Hopewell, upper-middle class) or simply a nuisance,
interfering with the tasks at hand. Like Don Tallinger, Sandy Robertson (working class)
preferred to leave the kids at home
In the clothes store they pull clothes off the racks, they hang
underneath the racks. Grocery store they’ll take ‘I want this’ and they’ll
put stuff in the cart...It’s a hassle to go shopping with kids so I don’t go
unless it’s during the day when they’re in school. And even then I still
have [my three-year old] and she won’t sit in the cart.
These examples indicate that lifecourse issues can play a role in shaping
consumers’ attitudes toward and experience of shopping. With small children to care
for, parents sometimes welcome the opportunity to take children on errands as a way
of “killing two (or more) birds with one stone" —parents get to accomplish shopping
tasks and entertain the children at the same time. As other studies have shown, elderly
consumers may also use shopping as a vehicle of entertainment (e.g., Miller et al.
1998; Lumpkin 1985). In such instances, it is the fact of having young children (or
being retired/having a frail body etc.), rather than anything related to class, that colors
the experience of shopping. Young children must be monitored and, to a lesser extent.
320
occupied. While it is true that some working class and working class poor parents on
tight budgets experienced greater difficulties in taking children on shopping trips with
difficuIt-to-satisfy requests the norm, this was by no means always the case. These
parents are accustomed to telling their children no, just as their children are
accustomed to hearing it. Moreover, not being able to afford Fruity Pebbles is not the
only reason a parent would not want a demanding child along. As Don Tallinger
illustrated, saying no to children is sometimes about the “inadvisability" of items. By not
having the children along, it is easier for parents to control their children’s access to
goods.19And just as the families’ current stage of life (e.g., empty nest, having school-
aged children) is not a class issue, neither is the fact that parents have standards that
their children challenge. Here, it is the lifecourse issue of having young children that
most strikingly colors parents’ view of shopping.
As is evident in the above discussion, the classless nature of many of the
issues that make shopping a likeable or at least positive experience, applies equally to
issues that make shopping a negative experience. Indeed, sometimes they are one in
the same. The lifecourse factors that were part of George Hopewell’s positive
evaluation of Saturday morning shopping trips, were similarly part of Sandy
Robertson’s negative evaluation of particular shopping circumstances. He saw utility in
having the children along, she saw it as a burden. Such instances reveal the subjective
19 In her ethnographic study of “alternative” forms of consumption, Clarke (1998) found evidence
of parents using catalogues to shop for toys and the like, as a means of maintaining control over
children’s requests. In her study, it was parents with limited income that used this shopping
venue in this manner. Nevertheless, their preference for this mode of shopping (as opposed, for
example, to shopping at Toys R Us) was linked not only to the expense associated with meeting
children’s requests, but also to the chaotic organization of such stores and the propensity of
children to become overexcited when there.
321
nature of these evaluations by showing how individuals can variously interpret the
same sets of circumstances. Perhaps more importantly for the present discussion,
however, they also suggest that, as with positive attitudes toward shopping, distaste
for shopping —either in general or under specific circumstances— is often linked to
issues that have little to do with class.
For example, for some respondents, certain types of apparel or shoe shopping
were viewed as distasteful, often for reasons of style or body image. Returning to
Sandy Robertson (working class), Sandy told me about her negative feelings about
clothes shopping. She complained about the mismatch between the styles on offer and
her personal clothing preferences:
I hate [clothes shopping] for myself.
I: Why is that? What do you hate about it?
The way the clothes are styled today. This is me [tugging the jogging
pants she is wearing]. Jogging outfits. Just a jogging suit and I'll be
happy. The way the clothes are styled today it’s, they’re not me.
I: What kind of things do you see that you wouldn’t wear?
The real short skirts the short shorts. Pants, well, the pants have the
bell bottoms, the shirts that, you know, just come up to here [pointing to
midriff level], that’s not me at all. Just give me a jogging suit or my
sneakers and I'll be fine.
Sandy went on to say that she enjoyed clothes shopping more generally, having “no
problem" when she shops for her husband or her children. It was the issue of the
styles on offer that rendered clothes shopping (for herself) an unpleasant experience.
In a similar vein, another respondent, Jill Parkin (upper-middle class) had a
hard time adjusting to the styles available (and worn by others) in the Sylvan area
when she moved there from the Northwest several years back. She found eastern
322
styles to be “more conservative" than what she was used to and had to adjust to what
she termed a “totally different ball game." At the same time, having gained more than a
few unwanted pounds, Jill had lost interest in clothes shopping:
I used to like shopping for myself because I could make the clothes look
good. It’s far less interesting when I lack a slim body. I have a closet full
of expensive, expensive [designer] clothes that I got at a very good
price but I can’t wear because they’re size six.
Thus, for Jill, clothes shopping has become both more difficult and less fun. These
changes were the result of shifts in her life which had little, if anything, to do with class.
Moving from one cultural context to another, Jill felt she had to modify her wardrobe in
order to fit in and be accepted. And, as dieters frequently testify, clothes shopping,
rarely experienced with joy during “heavy” periods, often becomes a sought after
activity once those pounds are shed.
Others also cited problems with size, either a result of their regrettably growing
shape (as Dave Dexter put it “I guess I’m not that trim") or simply being a difficult to
find size. With size six and a half feet, Gerald Naughton (working class poor) has great
difficulty finding shoes that will fit. On one search for sneakers, he had to go to five
stores just to find one that earned pairs in his size. By the time he got the shoes,
Gerald was disgusted with the whole process: “...Ahhhh, just give me the stupid shoes
and let me go home.” Others spoke of the difficulties of finding shoes that would meet
their standards for fit and comfort Like Cindy Dexter (upper-middle class), some saw
themselves as just “too picky” about shoe (or other) purchases, highly concerned that
they find something that “really fits, that’s not gonna kill me." In Cindy’s case, shoe
shopping was an exception, as she saw virtually all other types of shopping as leisurely
323
and enjoyable. Again, as with others concerned with style and fit, Cindy’s distaste for
shoe shopping had little to do with class.
In short, issues of style and fit are not easily labelled as class issues. Although
consumers style preferences may be class-linked (see discussion in Chapter One),
one’s ability to locate and secure those items one finds desirable generally have little
to do with class. Having a shoe size outside of the usual range will make buying shoes
more difficult for virtually any consumer, regardless of class position. Similarly, we all
go through seasons when the fashions in the stores simply do not feel like “us.” We try
to adapt to the wide shoulder pads or wedge heels the designers have provided for this
year's selections, but get frustrated when we cannot locate our favored cardigan
sweaters or spike-heeled shoes. Moreover, we are all susceptible to the depression
that accompanies unwanted weight-gain. Realizing that your standard size has moved
up a notch or two is rarely a pleasant experience; few of us, regardless of class
position, would take such news as a cue to enthusiastically search for more garments.
In such instances, while shopping becomes a distasteful and frustrating experiences,
class is not the issue.
In other instances, “pressure to buy” was seen as negatively influencing
consumers’ experiences (Otnes, Kim, and Lowrey 1992). Here, respondents regarded
shopping as unpleasant because of the stress involved in finding the “right” item.
Often, working against the clock contributed to the pressure and thus, unpleasantness
of the experience. For example, buying gifts for those difficult-to-buy-for loved ones
presented problems for several respondents in the study. Tern Stevens (working class)
explained the frustrations she experiences when trying to find gifts for her parents:
324
The kind of shopping I don’t like to do is like maybe if I’m trying to find a
gift for a difficult person or somebody, like my parents. That kind of
shopping I hate. J don’t like shopping when I feel like I have to buy a
gift. I like to buy the perfect gift for somebody that really fits them, you
know. I don’t like just feeling like ‘I gotta get...l gotta get them
something.’ That’s the only kind of shopping I really don’t...other than
that [shrug]...
Gift-giving was a source of anxiety for others as well. Linda Yanelli (working class)
who, like Terri, enjoyed most shopping, expressed significant discomfort over the
pressure surrounding gift purchases for her in-laws. Linda found it difficult to
reciprocate their generous gift-giving practices, not because she was unwilling or
unable to spend sufficient money on their gifts, but because she found it difficult to find
appropriate items for them. While Linda regarded most shopping as “leisure" she felt
differently about this type of purchasing.
When it’s some kind of pressure thing, then I do it, but I don’t like doing
it. Like Billly’s mom and her boyfriend get us the best Christmas
presents every year. They spend so much money on us. All our [small]
appliances came from them...the toaster oven, a steamer, a wok. And,
when they do that...[vo/ce trails off]. And he’s a big man, I mean a real
big man, so you can’t buy him clothes, and he’s a real fussy guy, and
doesn’t wear cologne, and doesn’t do this, and he’s the kind of guy you
cannot buy anything for, but he treats people so good. So when it
comes time to shop for him, I go crazy. I mean, I make myself sick over
it.
Having a family member who is “the kind of guy you cannot buy anything for” is
certainly not a class issue. Some people are easy to shop for. Having numerous
hobbies or favorite sports teams makes it easy to find something that such persons
would appreciate. Others, however, make our job more difficult The aunt who “has
everything;” the mother who “wants nothing," the grandfather who does not seem to
need anything. Difficult to buy for relatives (and friends) come in all shapes and sizes,
325
regardless of class. In short, social obligations, notions of appropriate expression of
sentiment, or simply feeling as if you want to get something extra special —either for
oneself or for others— can make shopping difficult and uncomfortable for members of
any class group.
The Importance of Gender
For some respondents, distaste for shopping was all but uniform. For these
consumers, problems with style or fit, or “pressure purchasing” might represent just a
few of the wide array of circumstances under which shopping was viewed in a negative
light. Indeed, just as there were consumers who had “generally positive" attitudes
toward shopping, there were also those who had “generally negative” attitudes toward
shopping.
However, while there were no clear patterns as to which respondents viewed
shopping positively there was a clear pattern with respect to those who viewed it
negatively. On this issue, a clear gender pattern emerged. Of the respondents who
expressed “generally negative” attitudes toward shopping, virtually all were men.
Although based on a small, unrepresentative sample (such that these findings cannot
be taken as conclusive evidence of a broader trend), these results do suggest that
gender plays a powerful role in this regard.
Indeed, as other studies have pointed out, probably the most striking
demographic issue in terms of consumers’ attitudes and orientations toward shopping
regard differences by gender. Shopping is, indisputably, a gendered activity and a
feminine one at that (e.g., Campbell 1997; Costa 1994; Lunt and Livingstone 1992).
According to one estimate, mothers spend eight hours a week shopping compared to
three for fathers. Moreover, “in ninety-two percent of both dual-earner and single
326
earner families, wives are primarily responsible for buying goods." (Fram and Axelrod
1990). These percentages vary little by merchandise category. Apparently, women
continue to do the vast majority of purchasing with regards to all types of goods “from
groceries to clothing, furniture and other durable goods.”
As several authors have ably argued, the feminine character of shopping (and
consumption in general) is at least partly responsible for keeping this sphere out of
academic research and theorizing (Miller 1995; Nava 1997; Weinbaum and Bridges
1976). In terms of popular perceptions, Campbell (1997) has suggested that the
relationship between shopping and things feminine has an important influence on
men’s (and women’s) attitudes toward it. Because it is viewed as a feminine activity,
men are likely to either develop a genuine distaste for shopping or to qualify any
positive feelings.
In the present study, there could be little question that shopping was principally
a female domain. In virtually every household across the class spectrum, women were
primarily responsible for the mental, physical and emotional work involved in managing
encounters between the family and commodity markets. This was true both in
households where women cared for their families full-time, as well as in those where
women worked in the paid labor force.
Aside from the issue of who actually did the “consumption work,” as noted
above, negative feelings about shopping (and their expression) were decidedly
gendered. Again, a gender pattern, rather than a class pattern was in evidence. Not
surprisingly, these feelings were characterized by an instrumental approach to
shopping in which the goal of obtaining the goods was treated as the sole objective of
327
the experience. Tom Lawton, for example, an upper-middle class consumer, rejected
the notion of shopping as an opportunity to view the variety of products on offer.
...if I need something, I just go out and buy it. I don’t, like, gaze around
looking at books and lots of other things.
I: So, you’re not a browser?
No. I hate it. I fall asleep as soon as we walk in the store. I get very
tired. As soon as I walk in a store I start yawning. There must be
something in the atmosphere [laughtei].
I: And have you ever been one to enjoy looking around? Is that
something that’s changed in your life?
No. I think I’ve always pretty been much that way, yeah.
Sentiments of this type were repeated over and over again by male respondents. Mike
Robertson (working class) told me that he “can’t stand shopping...period.”
I: What kind of a shopper or ‘buyer of things’ are you?20
I don’t go shopping, first of all. If I need something, I just go out and get
it and that’s it and I come right back. So, I don’t, you know, I don’t spend
that much time in a store.. . I don’t really like shopping. I just go in and
get what I want and I’m out. And Christmas shopping, [my wife] does
cause I just can’t stand it.
I: What is it that you can’t stand about it, that you don’t like?
Shopping period.
I: Do you not like the, I mean, some people don’t like the walking around
or...
No, I don’t mind the walking around. I don’t like when they go shopping
they keep on looking. Its like, if you go in a store you’re in there for
“ Cognizant of the gender (as well as other) connotations associated with the term “shopping" I
purposely asked respondents this question using the admittedly awkward words “buyer of
things” in conjunction with the more conventional term “shopper." I opened this query by asking
respondents to describe themselves “in terms of their shopping habits...”
328
maybe an hour, you know. I’m not like that. Like I said, I just go in and
get what I want and come out.
Frank Warner (working class poor) also spoke of the “looking" and “gazing" as
contrary to his sense of what shopping should be about. Frank summed up the
feelings of many:
As far as shopping itself, I just don’t like it. I just don’t like walking
around, just looking. I’ve never been a gazer. I know what I want, I go
get what I want and that’s it. I’m outta there. Uh, just, to me, shopping,
walking around, just looking, it’s not enjoyable. Even if you had the
money, it’s still not enjoyable. That just never appealed to me.
As with Tom, Frank, and Mike, men who disliked shopping often spoke about the
“gazing” aspects of shopping, the notion of looking at items one is not presently
intending to buy as incomprehensible. While women respondents also made
comments of this nature, the reasons behind their comments were generally linked to
class issues. Upper-middle class women who balked at the notion of gazing linked
their feelings to the time-deficit in their lives (see Chapter Five). Working class and
working class poor women were put off by their lack of financial resources (see
Chapter Three). As noted above, these women were not necessarily opposed to the
idea of shopping/gazing altogether, but rather, given their (class) circumstances, found
it both impossible and undesirable to do so.
Men, on the other hand, were more likely to have ill-feelings toward shopping
under (almost) any circumstances. They found it boring. This was true across the class
spectrum. In scoffing at the gazing aspects of buying goods, these men, in essence
rejected the notion of “shopping” (Nava 1997). That is, to the extent that “shopping"
includes more than simply entering a store, finding the desired items, paying for them.
329
and leaving, these men generally do not shop and do not, under almost any
circumstances wish to shop. Indeed, Don Tallinger (upper-middle class) made the
distinction clear: “I buy things. I don't shop."21
Thus, once again, we see the limits of class as a factor influencing consumers’
experiences. The power of gender to shape the practices of acquisition cannot be
denied. That men and women often have different views towards and feelings toward
the activities of acquisition is not, in the main, a class issue.
Throughout this dissertation, I have shown how class shapes acquisition
processes. I have argued that class influences fundamental aspects of consumers’
experiences, shaping the ways we think and feel (as well as what we do) while
attempting to access market goods. That class plays such a role in processes of
acquisition, however, does not mean that everything about acquisition varies by class
or, for that matter, is about class. Indeed, as I have illustrated in this chapter there are
aspects of these processes that would appear to be relatively untouched by class.
While the notion that class has a strong influence on some aspects of these
processes and is relatively inconsequential in others would seem unremarkable, the
literature on class and consumption does not reflect an understanding of this reality.
Class skeptics portray the realm of consumption as wholly classless (see Chapter
One). Others, particularly Bourdieu, depict consumption as consistently divided along
21 Of course, even men (or others) who generally disliked shopping tended to have some
circumstances under which it might be enjoyable. Some spoke of shopping for particular types
of goods, such as those related to a hobby (e.g., fishing, golf) as enjoyable. Although most men
who rejected the idea of shopping included Christmas shopping as a type of shopping to be
avoided, some, like George Hopewell saw it as a pleasant way of getting into the spirit of the
holiday.
330
class lines. Each perspective presents problems. Class skeptics fail to see the various
ways class influences acquisition processes (as discussed in earlier chapters). At the
same time, however, Bourdieu's work has been rightly criticized for being overly
focused on consumption’s divisive aspects and blind to the ways consumption can
foster solidarity and communion, both within and across class groups (Longhurst and
Savage 1996; for a similar critique of Veblen see Douglas and Isherwood 1996).
The findings presented in this chapter indicate that acquisition processes (i.e.,
activities of consumption not examined by Bourdieu) do indeed provide opportunities
for solidarity (or at least not division) across class lines. These findings suggest that
there is such a thing as “a consumer” or “a customer" or, perhaps “a shopper” that is
largely ignorant, if not defiant, of class boundaries. Indeed, there are ways in which we
lose, if only momentarily, our class identities when acting under this guise. Across
class lines we frequently shop in stores that are largely the same if not identical. We
are greeted with the same store policies, the same piped in muzak, the same long (or
short) lines. In this vein, I have suggested that it is largely macro-level factors
regarding the structure of American retail (e.g., prevalence of chain stores), shifts in
retail marketing (e.g., the marketing of discount stores; mall redevelopment), and
legislative and public policy initiatives (e.g., consumer protection policy) that have
provided the bases for experiences of a decidedly classless nature. Other structural
factors encouraging shopping experiences that cross class lines regard social and
cultural norms. Such norms influence the circumstances under which, for example, we
spend time with loved ones, suggesting that certain times and places (e.g., weekend
shopping) constitute appropriate ways to be together while others do not. In a world
331
where such interactions often depend upon having a “purpose,” shopping provides an
excuse for us (regardless of class membership) to be together.
These findings, then, when considered in light of those presented in previous
chapters, suggest that the relationship between class and processes of acquisition
must not be understood to be one based entirely on difference. Indeed, given the
multi-dimensional character of these processes —affected by and affecting both
macro- and micro-level forces— it would be bizarre were a wholly consistent
relationship evident. In the final chapter to the dissertation I reflect further on the
implications of these findings, particularly with respect to the continued significance of
class.
332
CHAPTER 9
CONCLUSION
Long a cornerstone of sociological analysis, the concept of class is under fire.
Critics argue that class has lost its relevance to social stratification. Whereas in
previous eras, class groups were central to social identity and division, class is said to
be of little consequence for contemporary issues of stratification (e.g., Clark and Lipset
1991; Pakulski and Waters 1996; Pahl 1996; Gorz 1982).
The sphere of consumption has been put forth as one arena in which the
influence of class has largely disappeared. Scholars point to the ubiquity of various
consumer products and the loosening of the relationship between class and the goods
people consume. Rather than bolstering class division as it did in the past, today
consumption is said to aid in its dismantling by obfuscating class boundaries (Clark
and Lipset 1991; Pakulski and Waters 1996).
In many ways, these critics would appear to be right. Shopping malls are filled
with children running about in Nikes, Adidas, and other sneakers of brand name origin.
Baggy sweatshirts, jerseys and “official" jackets with sports team logos are the norm.
These items reveal little about the background of the child who is wearing them.
In this dissertation, I have not refuted these claims. In fact, although
comparisons of the goods people posses (or even their use of or taste for those
goods) was not the focus of the present study, assertions regarding the classless
nature of goods consumed were, in some measure, borne out in my research. The
working class Yanellis’ blond wood dining table and chairs would have blended in
easily in upper-middle class Lori and Steve Mandels’ contemporary-design kitchen.
Like the upper-middle class Dexters, the working class Fallons had a cellular phone.
333
And the 1989 Chevy station wagon driven by upper-middle class Peggy Hopewell
looked decidedly downscale when compared to the new Ford Aerostar working class
Sandi Robertson relied upon. Viewing consumption from this angle, one would indeed
have a difficult time locating class.
Nevertheless, as I have argued here, the relationship between class and
consumption must be understood in broader terms. Consumption includes more than
product use and display. Integral to the consumption of goods is the acquisition of
goods. The processes associated with obtaining goods —even if the items are
“classless"— have not been included in current analyses. Thus, in making the case
that consumption weakens class stratification, scholars have relied upon incomplete
and distorted views of the sphere of consumption. Viewed as a process of acquisition,
rather than possession, consumption can be seen as playing a different role in the
creation and maintenance of class division. Throughout this dissertation, I have sought
to understand the relationship between class and these processes.
Does Mass Consumption Mean Mass Experience?
My research shows that class has an important influence on the experiences of
individuals as consumers. Even if people are consuming the same (or similar) products
across class lines, the experience of getting those products differs by class in
significant ways. By expanding our understanding of what consumption entails to
include the thoughts and activities associated with accessing those products, we see
that being a consumer is not the same enterprise for all. Class shapes the mental,
physical, and emotional activities in which individuals acting as consumers engage.
In some families, as with the upper-middle class Tallingers, buying a pair of the
ubiquitous Nike sneakers involves a last-minute decision to stop off at a sporting
334
goods shop on the way home from an afternoon at the movies. Don Tallinger would be
likely to place the sneakers on a credit card, paying all or most of the balance off at the
end of the month. Failing to do so may require an occasional stock liquidation to
relieve the debt, but would not significantly alter the family’s buying habits. In other
families, such as the working class Fallons, the same purchase would involve regular
scanning of sale papers and store phces, as well as discussions between parents and
children over how much each will contribute to the purchase. Alternatively, Debbie and
Artie might save a small sum each week toward the cost of the item, keeping the cash
in a drawer in their bedroom until they have enough set aside to buy the sneakers.
Those earmarked monies might come from earnings from Debbie’s intermittent “side
job,” indeed she may have accepted the shift knowing that one of her children was due
for a new pair of sneakers. In working class poor households, such as that of the
DeStefanos, such a purchase would generally be regarded by the parent as out of the
question. A cheaper option would likely be suggested or, as with the Fallons, if the
child persisted in her request the purchase might be made with supplementary funds
from the child herself. Cash on hand would invariably be the only alternative on which
to resort. If the request was made too late in the month when the family’s monthly
check had run out, the sneakers would simply have to wait.
In each of these scenarios the children in question may very well wind up with
identical sneakers. Viewed accordingly, class would appear to be of little consequence;
mass consumption (and marketing) in the current era means that children of varied
class backgrounds may indeed wear the same shoes. In such situations, each child
would have access to the images associated with such footwear and could form an
335
identity around them. Cross-class (or non-class) style associations would certainly be
possible.
However, even if such connections of stylistic solidarity were forged, the nature
of the various activities in which these children and their parents engage in obtaining
the shoes (i.e., the processes of acquisition) would, nevertheless, markedly differ.
Acting as a consumer means different things in these households. For some, buying
sneakers involves a quick turn into a sporting goods shop. For others, it involves
weeks of preparation, thought and discussion. Mass consumption does not mean
mass experience.
In The Overspent American, economist Juliet Schor argues that the standards
against which American consumers gauge their standing have been raised
considerably over the past fifty years. Schor suggests that today’s consumers are
exposed on a more intimate level with the consumption habits of the upper and upper-
middle class in a way that has not always been true (1998:9-11). Television
advertising, for example, unlike other mediums, exposes consumers from a wide array
of backgrounds to images of shiny new luxury cars and designer cosmetic lines,
regardless of whether those viewers are part of the “target market." Also contributing
to increased exposure to higher end consumer goods according to Schor has been the
entrance of large numbers of women into the paid labor force. These workers
(particularly those in white collar settings) are witness to and hear about the spending
habits of people from a wider spectrum of economic groups than those to which they
would be exposed in their residential area.
Such forces, Schor argues, have helped raise standards and expectations
among consumers who can ill-afford to buy the brand name goods and high-priced
336
services marketed to an upper/upper-middle class clientele. Returning to the example
of the Nike sneakers, when children of the working classes see advertisements for
Nike products, featuring Michael Jordan and other prominent sport stars they, like their
upper-middle class counterparts, want those shoes. My research, aimed at
understanding the processes by which consumers obtain goods, shows that while the
products desired (and in such cases, purchased) may be the same across class
categories, the experiences of consumers in accessing those goods are not. In other
words, while the standards themselves may be universal, the ability of consumers to
meet these standards is class-specific.
Ironically, this means that it is precisely those situations in which one “cannot
tell who is who on the High Street,” as Parkin (1979) suggested where class is likely to
matter most to the process. That is, it is those situations in which consumers across
class categories purchase the same goods, for (generally) the same price that the
processes leading up to that purchase are likely to differ most dramatically. Because
consumers approach commodity markets with different resources (compliments of
class), the practices associated with obtaining that same $60 pair or Nike sneakers
differs as well, across class lines.
My findings reveal that class influences the experiences of consumers in
particular ways. Perhaps most starkly, the thinking processes in which individuals as
consumers engage varies by class. Two related axes frame these mental processes:
time and clarity. The mental activity of working class and working class poor
consumers is centered on present-time (or, as I have suggested, current-time)
concerns. For these individuals, being a consumer requires directing one’s thoughts in
337
a pointed fashion toward reconciling current needs and wants with current resources.
The limited and, at times, uncertain nature of the financial resources on which these
consumers rely shapes their mental activities by rendering small, and (near)immediate
intervals of time, meaningful and relevant. Although my findings refute notions of
working class and poor consumers as hedonistic or unable to defer gratification, the
evidence suggests that pointed thinking and planning about near-term issues of
acquisition is a regular aspect of these individuals’ cognitive functioning.
Relatedly, the thinking processes in which these consumers engage is
generally clear and concrete in character. Relying on limited, on-hand financial
resources to obtain consumer goods encourages a clear and uncomplicated
perspective by weeding out the unnecessary and irrelevant and leaving standing only
that which matters. In such situations, the relationship between cause and effect,
action and result is readily apparent. Straightforward calculations in which the
ramifications for action are clear are the norm.
My research indicates that working class and working class poor consumers
experience acquisition in highly similar fashions. The differences across these class
categories are more of degree than kind. Though the working class poor have more
intense and relentless experiences of this sort, the processes of acquisition in which
consumers engage are of a similar character across this porous class boundary.
The mental processes in which upper-middle class consumers routinely
engage are qualitatively different from those of the working class and working class
poor. For upper-middle class consumers, acquisition issues of the current period are
not a consistent cause for pointed thought and concern. The greater degrees of
freedom afforded them by their significant financial resources fosters a broad and
338
imprecise perspective on time. Small intervals are largely meaningless in their worlds
of acquisition. As with the working class and working class poor, this relates to the
issue of clarity in upper-middle class consumers’ mental processes. Having sufficient
resources to meet everyday consumption needs means that these consumers are
spared the need to think in a finely detailed manner. Instead, the relationships with
which they, as consumers grapple, are vague and abstract in nature (if those
relationships are considered at all).
What these differences mean is that consumers are provided opportunities to
practice different skills, to think in different ways by virtue of class position. Class
encourages consumers to develop alternative, indeed, contrasting mental maps. The
working classes become practiced in the arts of focusing on small details, conceiving
of time in small, discrete segments, and viewing things in concrete, unambiguous
ways. Upper-middle class consumers hone and develop their skills in “big picture"
thinking, engaging in what is often future-oriented, largely abstract reasoning and
planning.
Other aspects of consumers’ experiences also vary by class. There are
emotional costs and benefits associated with acquisition that are in large measure
class specific. The type of emotional strain experienced by working class, and to a
greater extent, working class poor consumers, was not evident in upper-middle class
households. Particularly in working class poor families, the fact that small, everyday
consumption needs were a cause for concern meant that such purchases could also
be a cause for friction. As partners, these consumers expended emotional energy
managing their encounters with one another over acquisition in a seemingly ever
present way. As parents (and partners) these consumers confronted the conflicting
339
emotions that come from routinely being in competition with one’s children (or partner)
for acquisition resources. There is both pleasure and pain that comes from sacrificing
one’s own needs and wants for those of loved ones.
Again, upper-middle class consumers encountered these conflicts and strains
as well, but in a way less integral to, and dominant of, everyday life. Moreover, for
upper-middle class consumers there are unique emotional challenges to be met. The
multitude of choices open to these consumers represent what is in many ways a
double-edged sword. On the one hand, having choice as a consumer provides
individuals with opportunities to feel (and be) in control of their lives. These consumers
are routinely able to act on their wishes, be they to obtain an item, or forego its
purchase. Psychologists have long documented the positive effects of individual
efficacy, particularly with regard to issues of self-esteem (Gekas 1982). But there are
drawbacks as well. Choice comes with personal responsibility and accountability.
When one is financially able to obtain a consumer good and yet fails to do so
(because, for example, they are too disorganized to complete acquisition tasks),
feelings of inadequacy can emerge. Similarly, telling a child that she cannot have an
item she covets can be all the more emotionally trying when parents do not have the
“we cannot afford i f response in their arsenal. For better and for worse, being able to
afford the goods in question brings into high relief the fact that one’s actions represent
a choice.
I have argued that the influence of class on these largely mental and emotional
processes is rooted primarily in the class-linked financial resources with which
consumers approach commodity markets. Financial resources take such forms as
340
income, assets, credit, and in-kind sen/ices stemming from a range of sources. I have
argued that it is important to consider this set of resources as a whole, rather than in
terms of any single aspect such as income from employment. Understanding that
consumers rely on a range of financial resources (including but not limited to income)
in accessing market goods makes clear the connection between class position and the
experiences of consumers in obtaining market goods.
However, while financial means are fundamental to the relationship between
class and acquisition experience, such resources are not the only ones at play.
Financial capabilities work in tandem with socio-cultural resources rooted in education,
work experience, and other aspects of life under the conditions of class. Such
resources can affect the ways consumers approach particular purchases and manage
the encounters with representatives of retail institutions.
These areas of contrast in acquisition processes by class which I have
described throughout the dissertation were unmistakable. Moreover, because they
regarded their everyday thought and feeling processes, these aspects of consumers’
experiences were fundamental to their lives as consumers. They formed the backdrop
against which all acquisition activity took place.
Nevertheless, the relationship between class and the experiences of
consumers is not an entirely contrary one. Indeed, there are aspects of consumers’
experiences in which the salience of class is either absent or diminished. Structural
realities of the U.S. retail scene, for example, render the environments in which
consumers do much of their shopping either the same or highly similar across class
categories. As a result, the conditions (e.g., aesthetic conditions, store policies, the
341
level of service offered) faced by consumers at retail sites is often highly similar, if not
identical across class lines. Moreover, there are ways in which the title “consumer"
confers power and, in some measure, grants a unique set of rights to individuals,
regardless of class background. Owing in large measure to legislative and public policy
initiatives, customers across the class spectrum enjoy a measure of authority when
acting as such.
Perhaps most significantly, the culture of “shopping" and the place of shopping
in contemporary American culture encompass a multitude of meanings, experiences,
and encounters that have little to do with class. Indeed, on a variety of levels the joys,
disappointments, boredom and excitement that comes with shopping for consumer
goods do not know class boundaries. Eating sticky buns at Sylvangate Mall,
entertaining one’s children with a day of shopping errands, feeling depressed when the
garments one tries on prove to be too small, are all aspects of consumer experience
that are by no means limited to the members of any class group. As such, participation
in these activities is not a class experience but something far more general and
inclusive. Shopping is what everyone does and by engaging in it we announce to
ourselves and others that we are part of society. This becomes apparent, in large
measure, by the feelings of alienation described by those who are unable to participate
(i.e., the working class poor). But even those consumers have moments when the
burdens of necessity are lifted and they can and do head to the mall just like everyone
else.
Indeed, like other aspects of class experience, the practices of acquisition are
multi-dimensional. This means that despite the prevalence of class differences in
acquisition, there are moments when the injuries and privileges o f class seem to
342
subside. This complexity in class experience does not represent a weakness (or
weakening) of class, but rather is part of its enduring power. That shopping does not
relentlessly remind us of the differences and indeed, antagonisms of class division and
hierarchy contributes to the ability of such societal divisions to endure.
To a great extent the areas in which the experiences of consumers diverge
along class lines can be understood as constituting what are essentially pre
purchasing activities —that is those processes that generally take place prior to the
moment of purchase. These activities do not so much involve things that happen at
retail sites, but are the largely mental and emotional aspects of acquisition that
precede the purchase event. These are private activities to which the casual observer
(or even the intent observer) is not generally privy. By contrast, the areas of
convergence in the experiences of consumers from varied class backgrounds primarily
regard activities that take place at the sites of retail. They regard activities of a more
public nature. They have to do more with being a customer or a shopper (an individual
with a physical presence at a retail site) than a consumer in some broad and abstract
sense of the term.
It is therefore tempting to conclude that there exists a dichotomy between
acquisition activity that takes place in public and acquisition activity that takes place in
private; between pre-purchase activity and moment-of-purchase activity; being a
consumer and being a customer. Indeed, there are grounds for identifying such splits. I
would, however, caution against the employment of stark conceptual divisions. Indeed,
while these findings are suggestive of divides of this nature, the consistency of these
divisions should not be overdrawn. There are always internal tensions that qualify stark
343
overgeneralizations. Although class difference may be more muted at the sites of retail
than in the more private activities of acquisition, it would be wrong to view the more
public practices of acquisition as wholly classless. The power afforded all customers
appears to be in some measure more coveted by working class consumers, especially
men. Consumers’ feelings about the places they shop —even if they are the same
places across the class divide— are in both subtle and not so subtle ways different by
class. Thus, while in a broad sense there does appear to be a convenient distinction
to be made between public and private, pre-purchase and moment-of-purchase
activity, there are class dimensions bubbling below the surface even within the
seemingly “classless” aspects of acquisition. It is, I would argue, because class is such
a core element of who we are, that it permeates, in some measure, virtually every
aspect of life. Even when it seems to not be at issue, it is.
Bourdieu, Habitus and the Relationship Between Class and Consumption
As discussed in Chapter One, with the concept of habitus Pierre Bourdieu
(1977, 1984) has provided social scientists with a way of understanding the complex
interplay of the multitude of forces influencing individuals' lives, particularly as regards
class. In developing this concept, Bourdieu posits that there are dispositions which
stem from social structure, most notably the conditions associated with life in class
groups. At the same time, those dispositions themselves constitute a structure, of
sorts, that maintains considerable sway over the ways individuals think, act, feel, and
experience life.
As such, the habitus can be understood as a vehicle through which class is
actively created and reproduced. To understand class in this fashion is to see class as
lived experience. The concept requires researchers to see class and its regeneration
344
as an ongoing process in which individuals themselves daily engage. It means seeing
class not simply as a series of outcomes (e.g., voting behavior, leisure pursuits,
ownership of goods) but in terms of the steps involved in reaching those outcomes.
Relatedly, when understood in the context of the habitus, we transcend the notion of
class as regarding a series of fixed categories of stratification and consider the
meaning of the categories (i.e., class position) and how it affects people’s lives.
As such, I would suggest that this concept provides a way of conceptualizing
the acquisition activities I have described in this dissertation as both stemming from
class and helping to produce class. By seeing class as a process and the everyday
practices in which consumers engage as part of what are class-linked dispositions we
make room in our conceptualizations of what class is about and how it is created for
experiences that fall outside of those that regard the traditional categories associated
with class attributes, most notably those regarding production processes and relations.
My research suggests, that the meaning of class is, in part, created —rather than
merely reflected— through the activities in which individuals as consumers engage.
Indeed, my findings indicate that there are important aspects of people’s mental and
emotional lives as consumers which are powerfully influenced by class. Class
differences along these lines can be said to play a part in producing class by providing
individuals with opportunities to practice different skills and thus, in some regard,
become different people.
In their recent study of particular shopping sites in North London, Miller and his
colleagues come to somewhat similar conclusions with regards to the role of shopping
in the creation of class identity. They argue that shopping is, in part, a “medium’’
through which individuals “discover and refine” (1998:187) a sense of class identity. As
345
shoppers, they suggest, individuals come to identify with certain types of stores or
shopping centers which appeal to and “reassure” their class-based values and
sensibilities. Similarly, by placing individuals among others who are “their sort of
people” (or, indeed, those who are not) shopping offers a medium for “expressing,”
“experiencing" or at least noting class.1 Hence, they argue, as consumers (or, more
specifically, shoppers) individuals develop a sense of their own class position, as well
as that of others.
In discussing these findings Miller and his colleagues use their observations to
suggest that shopping be seen as contributing to the creation of class identities.
Relatedly, they suggest that shopping experiences can be seen as part of a broader
constellation of class experience:
[The] objectification [of class] in shopping is not unrelated to class as an

expression of occupation or of aspiration, but shopping provides a
particular structure of difference that is not going to be quite the same as
any other expression of class and therefore adds its own contribution to
what we understand and experience class to be. (Miller et al. 1998:187)
In other words, the authors suggest that the activities of consumption (and of shopping
in particular) are themselves activities of class experience in ways that uniquely
influence and constitute class experience.
In this way, Miller and his colleagues draw the same conclusion as do I with
regards to the role of shopping in the creation and maintenance of class identities and
divisions. However, my own work, I would suggest, touches on what are in some
1This does not mean that the bulk of shopping is not done at essentially “classless” chain stores
similar to those described in the present study (see Chapter Eight). What Miller and his
colleagues suggest is that consumers identify with certain stores (including certain chain stores)
and that they are central to both individuals’ shopping experiences and sense of themselves as
shoppers, regardless of where the majority of their purchasing is actually accomplished.
346
respects more insidious aspects of everyday life experience. Because my research is
more purposefully focused on the broader collection of activities regarding the
acquisition of goods (including pre-purchase activity) it reveals the ways in which
specific practical activities in which individuals as consumers engage are class-linked.
More than conscious or semi-conscious attitudes and self-perceptions linked to class
identity these practical activities associated with accomplishing acquisition are
essentially unnotable to the individual consumer. Indeed, it is the largely private nature
of these activities (such as saving toward a purchase, managing one’s overall
relationship to commodity markets) which I have described that makes them all the
more insidious and taken-for-granted. The private nature of these activities means that
individual consumers are not confronted with highly dissimilar points of comparison
with the way others outside of one’s social network navigate this terrain. Although we
have a sense about where we do and do not see others “like us” (at Founder’s Way
Mall rather than Knightsbridge), we are less likely to understand what it is that “the
other half does in preparing for that moment of purchase. As such, our own practices
in this regard are that much more insidious and taken-for-granted. These experiences
and practices, thus, become part of who we are through what might be considered
processes of social osmosis along the lines of that described by Bourdieu. They go
unnoticed but, nevertheless, become embedded —although not necessarily
permanently so— in our person. Indeed, it is in this respect that these practices
conform with Bourdieu’s notion of habitus as consisting of what are essentially
unacknowledged ways of being, feeling, and doing.
The concept of habitus, while helpful in providing a way to conceptualize these
experiences within a larger framework of class relations is not a wholly unproblematic
347
one. As others have suggested, Bourdieu has not in his own theoretical or empirical
work provided a clear sense of what the habitus consists (Jenkins 1992; Swartz 1997).
Although Bourdieu suggests that it is the conditions of everyday life which shape the
habitus —conditions linked to class in general, and the material constraints of class, in
particular— he does not develop a detailed portrait of how those conditions are
transformed into the dispositions or habits he describes. His research has not
examined how, precisely, it happens that material constraints (or other factors)
contribute to the creation of the class-based tastes, habits, or dispositions he
describes. While rewarding in terms of the descriptions and insights he provides with
respect to the differing tastes for and uses of various goods by class, Bourdieu’s own
empirical work has not clarified the categories or elements of habitus in ways that
would allow researchers to know what to look for in their applications of the model.
In this dissertation, I have provided a detailed map of the steps involved in the
processes of obtaining market goods. In particular, I have highlighted two principal
elements of these processes: time orientation and cognitive clarity. Although this
research was not designed to focus on these elements, each emerged as particularly
salient aspects of consumers’ experiences. These elements frame the mental and
emotional processes in which individuals accessing market goods engage. My
research suggests that these elements, central to thinking processes, should be
considered by researchers as they consider in fine detail the role of class and the
habitus in other aspects of life (e.g., engagement in leisure activities, the contours of
social relationships). Other components of acquisition processes have also proven to
be particularly salient. The notion of “choice,” for example, and its role in distinguishing
the mental maps relied upon by individuals represents another element of habitus
348
warranting further investigation. Does the wide range of choices open to upper-middle
class individuals as consumers transfer to other areas of life as well? How does this
influence the manner in which these individuals approach problems or make
decisions? Is the emphasis on choice a uniquely American phenomenon, linked to its
historical role in conceptions of individual freedom? By specifying the contours of these
elements of habitus, the present research suggests possible paths for future research
which, in concert with these findings, can help to clarify the concept.
349
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aaker, David A. and George S. Day, eds. 1978. Consumerism: Search for the
Consumer Interest, 3rd ed. New York: Free Press.
Abercrombie, Nicholas. 1994. “Authority and Consumer Society." In The Authority of

the Consumer, edited by Russel Keat, Nigel Whiteley, and Nicholas
Abercrombie. London: Routledge.
Adomo, Theodor, E. Frenkel-Brunswik, D.J. Leyinson, and R.N. Sanford. 1950. The
Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper.
Ari£s, Phillipe. 1962. Centuries o f Childhood: A Social History of Family Life. New
York: Vintage Books.
Allard, Christine. 1999. Personal communication, June 6. CVS, Cincinnati, OH.
Alwitt, Linda F. and Thomas D. Donley. 1997. “Retail Stores in Poor Urban
Neighborhoods." Journal of Consumer Affairs 31 (1): 139-64.
. 1996. The Low-lncome Consumer. Adjusting the Balance of Exchange.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Adam, Barbara. 1990. Time and Social Theory. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Andreason, Alan R. 1975. The Disadvantaged Consumer. New York: Free Press.
Appadurai, Arjun (ed.) 1986. The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural
Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ayres, Ian. 1991. “Fair Driving: Gender and Race Discrimination in Retail Car
Negotiations." Harvard Law Review 104(4):817-72.
Baldwin, Amy. 1998. “Credit Card Popularity Puts Layaway on Hold, But Custom Still
Exists." Lexington Herald-Leader, December 9.
Bane, Mary Jo and David T. Ellwood. 1986. “Slipping Into and Out of Poverty: The
Dynamics of Spells." Journal of Human Behavior 21:3-23.
Barnard, K. 1992. “The Decade of the Discounter.” Discount Merchandiser, 32(May

5):76-78.
Baudrilliard, Jean. 1988. Selected Writings. Edited by Mark Poster. Cambridge: Polity
Press.
350
Bauman, Zygmunt. 1987. Legislators and Interpreters: On Modernity, Postmodemity

and Intellectuals. Cambridge: Polity Press.
. 1988. Freedom. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
. 1982. Memories of Class: The Pre-History and After-life of Class. London:

Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Beck, Ulrich. 1992. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage.
Bellenger, Danny N. and Pradeep K. Korgaonkar. 1980. “Profiling the Recreational

Shopper." Journal of Retailing 56(3):77-92.
Benson, Susan Porter. 1986. Counter Cultures: Saleswomen, Managers, and

Customers in American Department Stores, 1890-1940. Urbana: University of
Illinois Press.
Bernstein, Basil. 1975. Class, Codes, and Control. London: Routledge and Kegan
Paul.
. 1977. “Social Class, Language and Socialization.” In Power and Ideology in

Education, edited by Jerome Karabel and A.H. Halsey. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Bem'ck, Jill Duerr. 1995. Faces of Poverty: Portraits of Women and Children on
Welfare. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Best, Arthur. 1981. When Consumers Complain. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Bird, Edward J., Paul A. Hagstrom, and Robert Wild. 1999. “Credit Card Debts of the
Poor. High and Rising." Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 18(1): 125-
133.
Bittner, Mary Jo. 1992. “Servicescapes: The Impact of Physical Surroundings on

Customers and Employees.” Journal of Marketing 56:57-71.
Blau, Peter and Otis Dudley Duncan. 1967. The American Occupational Structure.
New York: John Wiley.
Bluestone, Barry and Bennett Harrison. 1982. The Deindustrialization of America. New
York: Basic Books.
Blumberg, Rae Lesser. 1991. Gender, Family and Economy: The Triple Overlap.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
351
Blumin, Stuart M. 1989. The Emergence of the Middle Class: Social Experience in the
American City, 1760-1900. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blumstein, Philip and Pepper Schwartz. 1983. American Couples: Money, Work, Sex.
New York: William Morrow.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1987[1979]. “The Forms of Capital.” In Handbook of Theory and

Research for the Sociology of Education, edited by John G. Richardson.
Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
.1984[1979]. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, trans.

Richard Nice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice, trans. Richard Nice. Cambridge, MA:

Cambridge University Press.
Bowles, Samuel and Herbert Gintis. 1976. Schooling in Capitalist America. New York:
Basic Books.
Bott, Elizabeth. 1957. Family and Social Network: Roles, Norms and External
Relationships in Ordinary Urban Families. London: Tavistock Publications.
Bradbum, Norman M. 1969. The Structure of Psychological Well-being. Chicago:

Aldine.
Breiger, Ronald L. 1981. “The Social Class Structure of Occupational Mobility."

American Journal of Sociology 87(3): 578-611.
Brofenbrenner, Ulf. 1966. “Socialization and Social Class through Time and Space." In
Class, Status, and Power, edited by R.Bendix and S.M. Lipset, pp362-77. New
York: Free Press.
Brown, Clair. 1994. The Standard of Living. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Burawoy, Michael. 1979. Manufacturing Consent: Changes in the Labor Process

Under Monopoly Capitalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Burris, Val. 1988. “New Directions in Class Analysis.” Critical Sociology 15:57-66
Campbell, Colin. 1997. “Shopping, Pleasure and the Sex War." In The Shopping
Experience, edited by Pasi Falk and Colin Campbell. London: Sage.
. 1987. The Romantic Ethic and the Spirit of Modem Consumerism. London:
Blackwell.
352
Caplovitz, David. 1963. The Poor Pay More: Consumer Practices of Low-lncome
Families. New York: Free Press.
Carrier, James G. 1995. Gifts and Commodities: Exchange and Western Capitalism
since 1700. London: Routledge.
Chain Store Executive Age. 1996. “Blockbuster Video.” Chain Store Executive Age
72(1 ):82.
. 1994. “The Battle Continues: Wal-Mart, Kmart and Target Slug it Out in
Chicago." Chain Store Executive Age 70(8): sec 2.
Clark, Terry Nicholls and Seymour Martin Lipset. 1991. “Are Social Classes Dying?”
International Sociology 6(4):397-410.
Clarke, Alison J. 1998. “Window Shopping at Home: Classifieds, Catalogues, and New
Consumer Skills.” In Material Cultures, edited by Daniel Miller. London: UCL
Press.
Coleman, Richard P. 1983. “The Continuing Significance of Social Class to Marketing.”

Journal of Consumer Research 10:265-80.
Consumers Union. 1993. The Thin Red Line: How the Poor Still Pay More. San
Francisco: Consumers Union of the United States, West Coast Regional Office.
Corrigan, Peter. 1997. Sociology of Consumption: An Introduction. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.
Costa, Janeen Arnold. 1994. “Introduction.” In Gender Issues and Consumer Behavior,
edited by Janeen Arnold Costa. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Crompton, Rosemary. 1993. Class and Stratification: An Introduction to Current

Debates. London: Polity Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly and Eugene Rochberg-Halton. 1987. The Meaning of Things:

Domestic Symbols and the Self. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dahrendorf, Ralf. 1959. Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Dawson, Stem and Gillpatrick. 1990. “An Empirical Update and Extension of
Patronage Behaviors Across the Social Class Hierarchy. Advances in
Consumer Research 7 :833-38.
Dazinger, Sheldon and Peter Gottschalk eds. 1993. Uneven Tides: Rising inequality in
America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
353
de Grazia, Victoria with Ellen Furlough. 1996. Gender and Consumption in Historical
Perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press.
DeVault, Marjorie L. 1991. Feeding the Family. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dicke, Thomas S. 1992. Franchising in America: The Development of a Business

Method, 1840-1980. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.
DiMaggio, Paul. 1987. “Classification in Art." American Sociological Review 52:440-

455.
Dittmar, Helga. 1992. The Social Psychology of Material Possessions: To Have is To

Be. Hemel Hempstead, UK: Harvester Wheatshef.
Dizard, Jan E. and Howard Gadlin. 1990. The Minimal Family. Amherst: University of
Massachusetts Press.
Docherty, Drew. 1999. Personal communication, June 3. CVS, Cincinnati, OH.
Douglas, Mary and Baron Isherwood. 1996[1979]. The World of Goods: Towards an
Anthropology of Consumption. London: Routledge.
Doyal, Len and Ian Gough. 1991. A Theory of Human Need. Basingstoke, UK:
Macmillan.
Easterlin, Richard A. 1995. “Will Raising the Incomes of All Increase the Happiness of
All?" Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 27:35-47.
. 1973. “Does Money Buy Happiness?” The Public Interest no.30 (Winter):3-10.
Edin, Kathryn and Laura Lein. 1997. Making Ends Meet: How Single Mothers Survive
Welfare and Low-Wage Work. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Elder, Glenn. 1977. Children of the Great Depression, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of
Chicago.
Falk, Pasi. 1997. “The Scopic Regimes of Shopping.” In The Shopping Experience,
edited by Pasi Falk and Colin Campbell. London: Sage.
Falk, Pasi and Colin Campbell. 1997. “Introduction." In The Shopping Experience,
edited by Pasi Falk and Colin Campbell. London: Sage.
Fantasia, Rick. 1988. Cultures o f Solidarity: Consciousness, Action and Contemporary

American Workers. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
354
Feagin, Joe. 1991. “The Continuing Significance of Race: Anti-black Discrimination in

Public Places. “ American Sociological Review 56:101-16.
Featherstone, Mike. 1991. Consumer Culture and Postmodernism. London: Sage.
Fiske, John. 1989. Reading the Popular. Winchester, MA: Unwin Hyman.
Fox, Frances and Richard A. Piven. 1977. Poor People's Movements: Why they
Succeed. New York: Pantheon.
Fram, Eugene H. and Joel Axelrod. 1990. The Distressed Shopper” American
Demographics 12 (October).
Gabennesch, Howard. 1971. “Authoritariansim as World View.” American Journal of

Sociology 77(5):857-75.
Gabriel, Yiannis and Tim Lang. The Unmanageable Consumer. London: Sage.
Gans, Herbert J. 1973. Popular Culture and High Culture. New York: Free Press.
Gaventa, John. 1980. Power and Poweriessness: Quiescence and Rebellion in an

Appalachian Valley. Urbana: University of Illinois.
Gecas, Viktor. 1989. “The Social Psychology of Self-Efficacy." Annual Review of

Sociology 8:1-33.
Giddens, Anthony. 1991. Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late
Modem Age. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
. 1973. The Class Structure of Advanced Societies. New York: Harper and
Row.
Gladwell, Malcolm. 1996. “The Science of Shopping." The New Yorker November 4.
Glaser, Barney G. and Anselm Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory:
Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine.
Glazer, Nona Y. 1993. Women's Paid and Unpaid Labor. The Work Transfer in Health
Care and Retailing. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Glennie, Paul. 1995. “Consumption within Historical Studies.” In Acknowledging

Consumption, edited by Daniel Miller. London: Routledge.
Goffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, NY:
Doubleday.
355
Goldthorpe, John H. with Catriona Llewellyn and Clive Payne. 1987. Social Mobility
and Class Structure in Modem Britain, 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Goldthorpe, John H., David Lockwood, Frank Beckhoffer and Jennifer Platt. 1969. The
Affluent Worker in the Class Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Goodban, N. 1985. “The Psychological Impact of Being on Welfare." Social Service

Review, 59:403-22.
Gorz, Andre. 1982. Farewell to the Working Class: An Essay on Post-Industrial

Socialism, trans. Michael Sonenscher. Boston: South End Press.
Gose, Ben. 1999. “Tuition Increases Continue to Outpace Inflation at Many Private
Institutions." Chronicle o f Higher Education, March 26:A52.
Goss, Jon. 1993. “The Magic of the Mall:’ An Analysis of Form, Function, and Meaning
in the Contemporary Retail Built Environment." Annals of the Association of
American Geographers 83(1 ):18-47.
Gouldner, Alvin W. 1954. Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy. New York: Free Press.
Greenberg, Doris. 1999. Personal Communication, May 28. Founders’ Way Mall,
Sylvan County.
Gregory Communications. 1995. “Fact Sheet: Knightsbridge Mall.” Sylvan County.
Gregson, Nicky and Louise Crewe. 1998. “Performance and Possession: Rethinking
the Act of Purchase in Light of the Car Boot Sale." Journal of Material Culture
2(2): 241-263.
Haefner, J.E. and Leckenby. 1975. “Consumers’ Use and Awareness of Consumer
Protection Agencies.” Journal of Consumer Affairs 9:205-11.
Halle, David. 1984. America's Working Man: Work, Home, and Politics Among Blue-
Collar Property Owners. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Hams, Peter. 1999. Personal Communication, May 27. Department of Social Services,
Broome County, New York.
Hauser, Robert M., Peter J. Dickinson, Harry P. Travis, and John N. Koffel. 1975.
“Structural Changes in Occupational Mobility Among Men in the United States."
American Sociological Review AO: 585-98.
Hays, Sharon. 1996. The Cultural Contradictions of Motherhood. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
356
Hedbidge, Dick. 1979. Subculture: The Meaning of Style. London: Methuen.
Hirshman, Albert O. 1970. Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms,
Organizations and States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hochschild, Ariie Russel. 1997. The Time Bind: When Work Becomes Home and
Home Becomes Work. New York: Metropolitan Books.
. 1983. The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling. Berkeley:

University of California Press.
Holbrook, Mom's B. and Elizabeth C. Hirschman. “The Experiential Aspects of

Consumption: Consumers, Fantasies, Feelings and Fun.” Journal of Consumer
Research 9:142-154.
Holt, Douglas B. 1998 “Does Cultural Capital Structure American Consumption?”

Journal of Consumer Research 25(1): 1-25.
Horkheimer, Max and Theodor Adomo. 1972. Dialectic of Enlightenment. New York:
Herder and Herder.
Hout, Mike, Clem Brooks, and Jeff Manza. 1993. “The Persistence of Classes in Post-
Industrial Societies.” International Sociology 8(3):259-77.
Jackson, Kenneth T. 1985. Crabgrass Frontier. The Suburbanization of the United

States. New York: Oxford University Press.
Jacobs, Jerry. 1984. The Mall: An Attempted Escape from Everyday Life. Prospect
Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
Jenkins, Richard. 1992. Pierre Bourdieu. London: Routledge.
Jones, James M. 1988. “Cultural Differences in Temporal Perspectives: Instrumental

and Expressive Behaviors in Time." In The Social Psychology of Time, edited
by Joseph E. McGrath. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Jones, Ken. 1991. “Mega-Chaining, Corporate Concentration and the Mega-Mall." The
Canadian Geographer 35(3):241 -9.
Jones, Mary Gardiner and David M. Gardner. 1976 Consumerism: A New Force in
Society. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Co.
Joyce, George and Norman A.P. Govoni, (eds.) 1971. The Black Consumer
Dimensions of Behavior and Strategy. New York: Random House.
357
Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. 1977. Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic
Books
Kessler, R. and P. Cleary. 1980. “Social Class and Psychological Distress." American
Sociological Review 45:463-78.
Kohn, Melvin. 1977. Class and Conformity, 2nd edition. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Kohn, Melvin and Carmi Schooler. 1969. “Class, Occupation, and Orientation.”
Amencan Sociological Review 34:659-658.
Kowinski, William Severini. 1985. The Mailing of America: An Inside Look at the Great
Consumer Paradise. New York: William Morrow.
Kunstler, James Howard. 1993. The Geography of Nowhere: The Rise and Decline of
America's Man-made Landscape. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Lamont, Michele. 1992. Money, Morals, and Manners: The Cutfure o f French and
American Upper-Middle Class. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Lamont, Mich&le and Annette Lareau. 1988. “Cultural Capital: Allusions, Gaps and
Glissandos in Recent Theoretical Developments." Sociological Theory
6(2):153-68.
Lareau, Annette. 1998. “Race, Class and Children’s Activities.” Paper presented at the
Annual Meetings of the Eastern Sociological Society, Philadelphia, PA.
. 1989. Home Advantage: Social Class and Parental Intervention in Elementary

Education. London: Falmer Press.
Larkin, Jack. 1988. The Reshaping of Everyday Life, 1790-1840. New York: Harper
and Row.
Leach, William R. 1984. “Transformations in a Culture of Consumption: Women and

the Department Stores, 1890-1925." Journal of American History 71(2): 319-42.
Lee, David J. and Bryan S. Turner. 1996. Conflicts about Class: Debating inequality in
Late Industrialism. London: Longman.
Lehtonen, Turo-Kimmo and Pali Mdenpaa. 1997. “Shopping in the East Centre Mall."
In The Shopping Experience, edited by Pasi Falk and Colin Campbell. London:
Sage.
Leidner, Robin. 1993. Fast Food, Fast Talk: Service Work and the Routinization of
Everyday Life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
358
. 1995. “Operating Instructions: Highly-Educated Parents’ Use of Childbearing

Advice Literature.” Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the American
Sociological Association, Washington, DC.
LeMasters, E.E. 1975. Blue Collar Aristocrats. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Lewis, Oscar. 1969. “The Culture of Poverty." In On Understanding Poverty, edited by

Daniel P. Moynihan, pp187-200. New York: Basic Books.
Lipset, Seymour Martin. 1960. Political Man. Garden City, NY: Doubelday.
Longhurst, Brian and Mike Savage. 1996. “Social Class, Consumption and the
Influence of Bourdieu: Some Critical Issues." In Consumption Matters, edited
by Stephen Edgell, Keith Hetherington, and Alan Warde. Oxford: Blackwell.
Lumpkin, J. 1985. “Shopping Orientation Segmentation of the Elderly Consumer."

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 13(2):271-289.
Lunt, Peter K. and Sonya Livingstone M. 1992. Mass Consumption and Personal
Identity: Everyday Economic Experience. Buckingham : Open University Press.
Luxenberg, Stan. 1985. Roadside Empires: How the Chains Franchised America. New
York: Viking.
Macleod, Jay. 1987. Ain't No Makin' It: Levelled Aspirations in a Low-lncome

Neighborhood. Boulder: Westview.
Magnuson, Warren G. and Jean Carper. 1968. The Dark Side of the Marketplace: The
Plight of the American Consumer. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Marx, Karl. 1977 [1873]. Capital, vol. 1., trans. Ben Fowkes. New York: Vintage.
Mane, Karl and Friedrich Engels. 1968 [1847]. “Manifesto of the Communist Party." In
Karl Marx and Freiedrich Engels: Selected Works. New York: International.
Massey, Douglas S. and Mitchell L. Eggers. 1990. “The Ecology of Inequality:

Minorities and the Concentration of Poverty, 1970-1980.” American Journal of
Sociology 95(5):1153-88.
Massey, Douglas S. and Nancy Denton. 1993. American Apartheid: Segregation and
the Making of the Underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Mayer, Susan E. and Christopher Jencks, 1989. “Poverty and the Distribution of
Material Hardship." The Journal of Human Resources 24(1):88-113.
359
McCracken, Grant. Culture and Consumption. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University

Press.
McGrath, Joseph E., (ed.) 1988. The Social Psychology of Time Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
McNeil, K., J.R. Nevin, D. Trubeck and R.E. Miller. 1979. “Market Discrimination
Against the Poor and the Impact of Consumer Disclosure Laws: The Used Car
Industry." Law and Society Review 13:695-720.
Michman, Ronald D. and Alan J. Greco. 1995. Retailing Triumphs and Blunders:
Victims of Competition in the New Age of Marketing Management. Westport
CT: Quorum Books.
Miles, Matthew B. and A.Michael Huberman. 1984. Qualitative Data Analysis: A

Sourcebook of New Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Miller, Daniel. 1998. A Theory of Shopping. London: Polity Press.
. 1995. “Consumption as the Vanguard of History." In Acknowledging

Consumption, edited by Daniel Miller. London: Routledge.
, (ed.) 1995. Acknowledging Consumption. London: Routledge.
Miller, Daniel, Peter Jackson, Nigel Thrift, Beverley Holbrook and Michael Rowlands.
1998. Shopping, Place and Identity. London: Routledge.
Miller, Michael B. 1981. The Bon Marchd: Bourgeois Culture and the Department
Store, 1869-1920. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Miller, S. M. and Frank Riessman. 1961. “‘Working-Class Authoritarianism’: A Critique

of Lipset." British Journal of Sociology 11:263-276.
Mishel, Lawrence, Jared Bernstein, and John Schmitt. 1999. The State of Working
America: 1998-99. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Morley, David. 1992. Television, Audiences and Cultural Studies. London: Routledge.
Morris. 1993. Eugene. 1993. “The Difference in Black and White." American
Demographics 15:44-49.
Mort, Frank. 1996. Cultures of Consumption: Masculinities and Social Space in Late-
Twentieth Century Britain. London: Routledge.
360
. 1988. “Boys Own? Masculinity, Style and Popular Culture." In Male Order.
Unwrapping Masculinity, edited by Rowena Chapman and Jonathan
Rutherford. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Murray, Barbara B. 1973. Consumerism. Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear Publishing

Co.
Nasar, Jack L. 1998. The Evaluative Image of the City. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nava, Mica. 1997. “Women, the City and the Department Store." In The Shopping
Experience, edited by Pasi Falk and Colin Campbell. London: Sage.
. 1992. Changing Cultures: Feminism, Youth and Consumerism. London:Sage.
. 1991. “Consumerism Reconsidered: Buying and Power." Cultural Studies

5(2):157-73.
Nelson, Thomas C. 1986. “Everyday Injustices: Social Status and Consumer

Complaining.” Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Southern
California, Los Angeles, CA.
Nixon, Sean. 1996. Hard Looks: Masculinities, Spectatorship and Contemporary

Consumption. London: UCL Press.
Offe, Claus. 1985. Disorganized Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Onkvisit, Sak and John. J. Shaw. 1989. Product Life Cycles and Product Management.
New York: Quorum Books.
Oropesa, R.S. 1995. “Consumer Possessions, Consumer Passions, and Subjective

Well-being." Sociological Forum 10(2):215-44.
Osherson, Samuel. 1993. Wrestling with Love: How Men Struggle with Intimacy with
Wives, Children, Parents and Each Other. New York: Fawcett Columbine.
Ostrander, Susan A. 1984. Women of the Upper Class. Philadelphia: Temple

University Press.
Otnes, Cele, Young Kim and Tina Lowrey. 1992 “Christmas Shopping for ‘Easy’ and
‘Difficult Recipients: A Social Roles Interpretation.” Journal of Consumer
Research 15(3):422-33.
Packard, Vance. 1959. The Status Seekers. New York: David McKay.
Pahl, Jan. 1989. Money and Marriage. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
361
Pahl, Ray. 1989. “Is the Emperor Naked? Some Comments on the Adequacy of Social
Theory in Urban and Regional Research.” International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research 13(4):709-20.
Parker, Rozsika. 1995. Tom in Two: The Experience of Maternal Ambivalence.

London: Virago Press.
Parkin, Frank. 1979. Marxism and Class Theory: A Bourgeois Critique. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Pakulski, Jan and Malcolm Waters. 1996. The Death of Class. London: Sage.
Perrow, Charles. 1984. Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies. New
York: Basic Books.
Peterson, Richard A. and Albert Simkus. 1992. “How Musical Taste Groups Mark
Occupational Status Groups." In Cultivating Differences, edited by Michele
Lamont and Marcel Fournier. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Peterson, Richard A. and Roger M. Kern. 1996. “Changing Highbrow Taste: From
Snob to Omniovore.” American Sociological Review 61:900-907.
Peterson, Robert A. and William R. Wilson. 1992. “Measuring Customer Satisfaction:

Fact and Artifact." Journal of Academy of Marketing Science 20:61-71.
Polakow, Valerie. 1993. Lives on the Edge: Single Mothers and Their Children in the
Other America. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Poulantzas, Nicos. 1975. Classes in Contemporary Capitalism. London: New Left

Books.
Preteceille, Edmond and Jean-Pierre Terrail. 1985. Capitalism, Consumption and

Needs, trans. Sarah Matthews. New York: Blackwell.
Prus, Robert C. 1993. “Shopping with Companions: Images, Influences and

Interpersonal Dilemmas." Qualitative Sociology 16(2):87-110.
Reekie, Gail. 1993. Temptations: Sex, Selling and the Department Store. St.
Leondards: Allen and Unwin.
Ritzer, George. 1998. The McDonaidization Thesis: Explorations and Extensions.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
. 1995. Expressing America: A Critique of the Global Credit Card Society.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge.
362
. 1993. The McDonaldization of Society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge

Press.
Rollins, Judith. 1985. Between Women: Domestics and their Employers. Philadelphia:
Temple University Press.
Roberts, William. 1999. Personal Communication, May 27. Nike, Inc. Portland, OR.
Rubin, Lillian B. 1976. Worlds of Pain: Life in the Working-Class Family. New York:
Basic Books.
Sandikci, Ozlem and Douglas Holt. 1998. “Mailing Society: Mall Consumption
Practices and the Future of Public Space.” In Sen/iscapes: The Concept of
Place in Contemporary Markets, edited by John F. Sherry. Chicago: NTC
Business Books.
Schlereth, Thomas J. 1989. “Country Stores, County Fairs, and Mail-Order

Catalogues: Consumption in Rural America.” In Consuming Visions:
Accumulation and Display of Goods in America, 1880-1920, edited by Simon J.
Bronner. New York: W. W. Norton.
Schneider, L. and S. Lysgaard. 1953. “The Deferred Gratification Pattern: A

Preliminary Study." American Sociological Review 18:142-149.
Schor, Juliet B. 1998. The Overspent American: Upscaling, Downshifting and the New
Consumer. New York: Basic Books.
Shostack, Arthur. 1969. Blue-Collar Life. New York: Random House.
Sennett, Richard and Jonathan Cobb. 1972. The Hidden Injuries of Class. New York:
Vintage.
Sewell, William H., A.O. Haller and Alejandro Portes. 1969. “The Educational and Early
Occupational Attainment Process.” American Sociological Review 34:82-92.
Sharp, Rachel. 1980. Knowledge, Ideology, and the Politics o f Schooling: Towards a
Marxist Analysis of Education. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Sherraden, Michael. 1991. Assets and the Poor: A New American Welfare Policy.
Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Shields, Ron. (ed.) 1992. Lifestyle Shopping: The Subject of Consumption. London:
Routledge.
Shook, Came and Robert L. Shook. 1993. Franchising: The Business Strategy that
Changed the World. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
363
Simmel, Georg. 1978[1907]. The Philosophy of Money, trans. Tom Bottomore and
David Frisby. London: Routledge and Paul Kegan.
. 1991. “Money in Modem Culture.” Theory Culture and Society 8:17-31.
Slater, Don. 1997. Consumer Culture and Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Smith, Billy G. 1990. The ‘Lower Sort:' Philadelphia’s Labonng People, 1750-1800.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Smith, Dorothy E. 1987. The Everyday World as Problematic: A Feminist Sociology.

Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Stanley, Thomas. 1998. The Millionaire Next-Door. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Steinhauer, Jennifer. 1998. “The Stores that Cross Class Lines." New York Times
March 15, sec 3:1.
Strasser, Susan. 1989. Satisfaction Guarenteed: The Making of the American Mass
Market. New York: Pantheon.
Stone, Gregory P. 1954. “City Shoppers and Urban Identification: Observations on the
Social Psychology of City Life." American Journal of Sociology 60:36-45.
Sullivan, Teresa A., Elizabeth Warren, and J.L.Westbrook. 1997. “Consumer

Bankruptsy in the United States: A Study of Alleged Abuse and of Local Legal
Culture." Journal o f Consumer Policy 20(2): 223-268.
Swartz, David. 1997. Culture and Power The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Taub, S. 1983. “Can Kmart Come Back Again?" Financial World, March 31, pp50-52.
Terkel, Studs. 1972. Working. New York: Random House.
Tilly, Louise A. and Charles Tilly. 1981. Class Conflict and Collective Action. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Tomlinson, Alan (ed). 1990. Consumption, Identity and Style: Marketing, Meanings,
and the Packaging of Pleasure. London: Routledge.
United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Consumer Service (USDA),

Northeast Region. 1997. “Food Stamp Program: Guide for Retail Stores"
Boston, MA: USDA Food and Consumer Service.
Underhill, Paco. 1999. Why We Buy. New York: Simon and Schuster.
364
Veblen, Thorstein. 1994[1899]. The Theory of the Leisure Class. New York: Dover
Publications.
Walker, Chip. 1991. “What’s in a Name?” American Demographics 13:54-56.
Walker, Karen. 1994. "I’m Not Friends the Way She's Friends: Ideological and
Behavioral Constructions of Masculinity in Men's Friendships." Masculinities
2(2): 38-55.
Wallerstein, Judith S. and Joan Berlin Kelly. 1980. Surviving the Breakup: How
Children and Parents Cope with Divorce. New York: Basic Books.
Warde, Alan. 1994. “Consumers, Identity and Belonging: Reflections on Some Theses
of Zygmunt Bauman.” In The Authority of the Consumer, edited by Russel
Keat, Nigel Whiteley, and Nicholas Abercrombie. Routledge: London.
. 1992. “Notes on the Relationship between Production and Consumption." In

Consumption and Class: Divisions and Change, edited by Roger Burrows and
Catherine Marsh. London: Macmillan.
Warr, P. and R. Payne. 1982. “Experience of Strain and Pleasure Among British
Adults.” Social Science and Medicine 16:1691-7.
Weber, Max. 1946. “Class, Status, and Party.” In From Max Weber, edited by Hans
Gerth and C. Wright Mills. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Weinbaum, Batya and Amy Bridges. 1976. “The Other Side of the Paycheck:
Monopoly Capital and the Structure of Consumption." Monthly Review 28:88-
103.
Williamson, Judith. 1988. Consuming Passions: The Dynamics of Popular Culture.

London: Marion Boyars.
Willis, Paul. E. 1990. Common Culture: Symbolic Work at Play in the Everyday
Cultures of the Young. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
. 1977. Learning to Labor. How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Wilson, William J. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and
Public Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wood, Michael. 1995. “‘Impulse Buying’ and Socio-Economic Status” Paper presented
at the Annual Meetings of the American Sociological Association, Washington,
DC.
365
Woodruff, Robert B. 1993. “Developing and Applying Consumer Satisfaction

Knowledge: Implications for Future Research." Journal of Consumer
Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior. 6:1-11.
Wright, Erik Olin. 1985. Classes. London: Verso.
Young, Michael D. and Peter Willmott. 1957. Family and Kinship in East London.
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Zelizer, Viviana. 1994. The Social Meaning of Money. New York: Basic Books.
. 1985. Pricing the Priceless Child: The Changing Social Value of Children.
New York: Basic Books.
Zweig, Ferdynand. 1961. The Worker in Affluent Society. London: Heinman.
Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Berhau, Patricia G. Class and The Experiences of Consumers - A Study of The Practices of Acquisition PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Berhau, Patricia G. Class and The Experiences of Consumers - A Study of The Practices of Acquisition PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INFORMATION TO USERS

The quality o f this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced

Bell & Howell Information and Learning

Title o f Dissertation: Class and the Experiences of Consumers: A Study of the

Author: Patricia G. Berhau

Date o f Defense: July 22, 1999

Dissertation Examining Committee:(piease type) Read and Approved By: (Signatures)

Date Submitted to Graduate Board:

A STUDY OF THE PRACTICES OF ACQUISITION

the Temple University Graduate Board

of the Requirements for the Degree

All rights reserved.

Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company

Class and the Experiences of Consumers: A Study of Practices of Acquisition

Proponents of the “death of class" thesis suggest that consumption is

goods are obtained.

in-depth interviews and participant observation with a cross-class sample of eighteen

families living in a major (US) metropolitan area.

The findings suggest that class shapes the experiences of consumers in

shapes individuals’ orientations toward and conceptions of time when acting as

consumers. In addition, the character of the mental calculations in which individuals

some aspects of acquisition practice appear to be largely unaffected by class. Most

of class. Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of habitus is used as a way of placing acquisition

these practices in creating class.

On my journey toward completing this work, I benefited greatly from the

assistance of others. I would like to thank the members of my Dissertation Advisory

“own" graduate students, including me in seminars, suggesting books that I should

“drinking group.” Cheers.

name, I am grateful to them all.

possible for me to tend to my writing by loving and generally entertaining my most

them. Thanks to Jeremy too for always being such a trooper.

spouses of graduate students deserve to be thanked. Maurie has encouraged and

This work is dedicated to him, of course.

3. THE MEANING OF SCARCITY: ACQUISITION PROCESSES AND

4. CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER: THE THINKING WORK IN WORKING

5. ACQUISITION PRACTICES OF THE UPPER-MIDDLE CLASS................ 171

6. FROM A DISTANCE: THINKING AND FEELING INUPPER-MIDDLE

8. THE LIMITS OF CLASS............................................................................ 267

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................... 349

Table 2.1 Household Composition, Upper-middle Class Households.................. 20

Introduction: Consumption and Class

One of sociology’s major strengths lies in its ability to help us understand

concept of class to explicate stratification processes.

relations as the fundamental means by which inequality is both produced and

experienced in capitalist societies. Marx argued that ownership —and thereby

stratification (as did Marx), he nevertheless acknowledged that advantages in the

political and social spheres.

played an important role in the development of sociological theory (e.g., Dahrendorf

however, scholars have increasingly come to question the relevance of class to

review). The well-documented shift from manufacturing to service-based economies

boundaries. People neither view themselves nor act as members of classes.2

In making their case, class skeptics point to the growing importance of

consumption to social identity and division. Whereas relations of production were

central to such processes in the past, relations of consumption are said to be of

especially Chapter Seven). As one critic put it,

2 Other factors seen as contributing to increased murkiness in the delineation of class

The new classless culture focuses on consumption rather than

Unsurprisingly, while consumption is seen as being of central importance to both

thesis as decidedly classless. This represents a break from previous patterns.

According to these critics, consumption previously reinforced class division by

lives differed by class. Consumption provided a source of class solidarity by outwardly