On or about December 1910, wrote novelist Virginia Woolf,
human character changed. On his repeated visits to the United States,
Frenchman Andre Giegfried noted much the same thing: A new society has come to life
in America, he said. It was not clear in 1901 or 1904; it was noticeable in
1914, and patent in 1919 and 1925 (cited Leach 1993:266). Samuel Strauss, a
journalist and philosopher writing in the 1920s, suggested the term consumptionism to
characterize this new way of life that, he said, created a person with
a philosophy of life that committed human beings to the
production of more and more thingsmore this year than last year, more next
year than thisand that emphasized the standard of living above all
other values.
From a moral point of view," Strauss
continued,
it is obvious that Americans have come to consider their standard
of living as a somewhat sacred acquisition, which they will defend at any price. This
means that they would be ready to make many an intellectual or even moral concession in
order to maintain that standard. (cited Leach 1993:266)
There is no question that in America at least the
half-century from 1880 to 1930 marked a major transition in the rate and level of
commodity consumptionthe purchase, use, and waste of what comedian George Carlin
called stuff. Food production grew by almost 40 percent from 1899 to 1905; the
production of mens and womens ready-made clothing, along with the production
of costume jewelry, doubled between 1890 and 1900; glassware and lamp production went from
84,000 tons in 1890 to 250,563 tons in 1914. In 1890, 32,000 pianos were sold in the
United States; by 1904, the number sold increased to 374,000 (Leach 1993:16).
During this period the perfume industry became
the countrys tenth largest; at one department store, sale of toiletries rose from
$84,000 to $522,000 between 1914 and 1926. The manufacture of clocks and watches went from
34 million to 82 million in ten years. By the late 1920s, one of every six Americans owned
an automobile. All of this consumption occurred in a society in which 2 percent of the
people owned 60 percent of the wealth, while the bottom 50 percent owned only 5 percent.
Of course these figures are dwarfed by what
Americans and others around the world consume today. There are as many cars in the United
States as there are persons with drivers licenses, for example. However, although
consumption rates were not nearly as high as they are today, the early twentieth century
is notable because it marked the early phase of what Ernest Gellner (1983:24) called the
society of perpetual growth, and the creation of a new type of culture, consumer
capitalism (see Bodley 1985:67), along with the construction of a new type of person, the
consumer.
The emergence of the society of perpetual growth
and the culture of capitalism marked a new stage in an ongoing global historical process
that began (to the extent that it can be said to have a beginning) anytime from the
fifteenth to the early nineteenth centuries. The creation of the human type that
characterizes this stage, the consumer, followed soon after the emergence of two other
historically unique categories of human beings: the capitalist and the laborer. Merchants
had existed, of course, for thousands of years, and people had always labored to produce
goods and, in a fashion, consumed what theyd produced. But never before in history
has there existed a society founded on categories of people: the capitalist, whose sole
purpose is to invest money and accumulate profit; the laborer, whose sole means of support
comes from the sale of his or her labor; and the consumer, whose sole purpose is to
purchase and consume increasing quantities of goods and services.
By the end of the nineteenth-century, the
capitalist and laboreroperating within a set of rules mediated by a new type of
political entity, the nationstatehad created a revolutionary system for the
production of goods that potentially contained the seeds of its own destruction. By the
late 1890s, so many goods were being produced that businesspeople and government officials
feared overproduction, panic, and the severe economic depression that marked that decade.
Out of these fears came what William Leach called "a steady stream of
enticements" designed to encourage people to consume and to awaken Americans, as
Emily Fogg Mead, the mother of anthropologist Margaret Mead, said, to "the ability to
want and choose" (see Leach 1993:16). The consumer was necessary to save industrial
capitalism from its own efficiency.
Virtually all Americans, at some point in their
lives, play the roles of consumer, laborer, or capitalist; as consumers they buy things;
as laborers, they work for wages; and as capitalists they invest money in banks, insurance
policies, pension plans, stocks, education, or other enterprises from which they expect to
profit. What ties together these roles, and indeed the entire culture, is money. Every
culture has its distinct style or elements, rituals or ritual objects, that define for its
members what is most important in life. The Dogon of West Africa define their existence
through art; the Balinese of Indonesia, through drama and music. The Trobriand Islanders
engaged in the accumulation of yams and the ritual exchange of shell necklaces and
bracelets; the ancient Aztecs of Mexico in human sacrifice. For the indigenous peoples of
the American Plains, the key element of cultural life was the buffalo. For members of the
culture of capitalism the key element is money. As Jack Weatherford (1997:11) noted:
Money constitutes the focal point of modern world culture. Money
defines relationships among people, not just between customer and merchant in the
marketplace or employer and laborer in the workplace. Increasingly in modern society,
money defines relationships between parent and child, among friends, between politicians
and constituents, among neighbors, and between clergy and parishioners. Money forms the
central institutions of the modern market and economy, and around it are grouped the
ancillary institutions of kinship, religion, and politics. Money is the very language of
commerce for the modern world.
Consumers want to spend as much money as they
can, laborers want to earn as much as possible, and capitalists want to invest it so that
it can return more. There is the potential for much conflict in these arrangements. Each
person, as consumer, wants to pay as little as possible for commodities; while the same
person, as laborer, wants to earn as much as possible, thus driving up prices. The
capitalist wants to pay each person, as laborer, as little as possible, but wants the
person, as consumer, to earn enough to purchase the commodities from which profits accrue.
Yet each role also reinforces the other: The capitalist is dependent on the laborer to
perform services and produce products and on the consumer to buy them; the laborer is
dependent on the capitalist for employment and wages. Furthermore, each role disciplines
and drives the other: the consumer in each person, desiring to acquire commodities and the
status they may convey, accumulates debt; to pay off the debts accumulated to purchase
status-bearing commodities, the consumer must labor to acquire money or must, in the role
of capitalist, make investments hoping for greater returns.
We can perhaps best conceptualize the working of
the culture of capitalism as sets of relations between capitalists, laborers, and
consumers, each depending on the other, yet each placing demands on, and often conflicting
with, the others. In this cultural scheme, the nationstate serves as, among its
other functions, a mediator, controlling the creation and flow of money and setting and
enforcing the rules of interaction. (Figure 1.1 is a highly simplified model, but it
serves to underline the key features and unique style of the culture of capitalism.)

Where did the culture of capitalism come from?
One of the assumptions of this book is that the emergence of capitalism has been
misrepresented by many historians, sociologists, and anthropologists; rather than
recognizing it as the emergence of a historically unique culture, they have generally
portrayed it as an inevitable historical or evolutionary development. Capitalist culture
was equated with "civilization," implying that anything different was
"uncivilized." Later it was considered part of a process of
"modernization," implying that anything else was "primitive" or
"traditional." The emergence of the culture of capitalism, particularly in the
so-called third world, was called "economic development," once again implying
that anything less was "undeveloped" or "underdeveloped." However, if
we look at capitalism as one cultural adaptation out of many, we will better able to
understand and judge the effects it has had on the worlds peoples and see its spread
not as inevitable development, growth, or modernization, but as the displacement, for
better or worse, of one way of life by another. Put another way, there is not much to
choosing (as we must if capitalism is equated with progress, modernity, and development)
between being modern or primitive, developed or undeveloped, civilized or uncivilized; it
is, however, a very different matter in choosing whether to be a member of the culture of
capitalism or a Zuni, Guaran, Mohawk, Chuckchee, Nuer, or Murngin.
The emergence of the culture of capitalism has
left little in our lives untouchedit has affected our material, spiritual, and
intellectual life; it has reshaped our values; and, as we shall see, it has largely
dictated the direction that every institution in our society would take. It has produced
wave after wave of consumer goods, revolutionized food production, and prompted previously
unimagined developments in technology, communications, and medicine. Most dramatically, at
least from the anthropological point of view, "feeding" the consumer has
required a level of global integration unmatched in human history. The clothes we wear
more often than not are produced in whole or in part by people in Malaysia, Hong Kong, or
El Salvador; workers in Brazil probably cut the sugarcane that became the sugar that
sweetens our soft drinks; our morning coffee began as coffee beans in the highlands of
Colombia; the oranges we eat may have been grown in Spain, packed in cardboard boxes made
of Canadian pulpwood, wrapped in plastic produced in New Jersey, and transported on trucks
made in France with Italian, Japanese, and American parts. Our radios, televisions, and
VCRs are most likely assembled by workers in Mexico, Haiti, or Indonesia; and our
automobiles, of course, may have been produced at least in part in Japan, Taiwan, or
Korea.
Furthermore, the culture of capitalism is being
exported to all parts of the globe. Yet few people are aware of how the culture works and
how it affects our lives and those of people all over the worldhow American
consumption, labor, and investment patterns relate to wages paid to women in Indonesia,
the destruction of the rainforests in Paraguay, or the use of water on the American
Plains. This is not necessarily the fault of the individual, for as we shall see, the
culture of capitalism purposefully masks from its members the problems that result from
its maintenance and spread.