|
|
Historians have only recently begun to note the increase in demand for
luxury goods and services that took place in eighteenth-century England.
McKendrick has explored the Wedgwood firm’s remarkable success in marketing
luxury pottery; Plumb has written about the proliferation of provincial theater,
musical festivals, and children’s toys and books. While the fact of this
consumer revolution is hardly in doubt, three key questions remain: Who were the
consumers? What were their motives? And what were the effects of the new demand
for luxuries?
An answer to the first of these has been difficult to obtain. Although it
has been possible to infer from the goods and services actually produced what
manufacturers and servicing trades thought their customers wanted, only a study
of relevant personal documents written by actual consumers will provide a
precise picture of who wanted what. We still need to know how large this
consumer market was and how far down the social scale the consumer demand for
luxury goods penetrated. With regard to this last question, we might note in
passing that Thompson, while rightly restoring laboring people to the stage of
eighteenth-century English history, has probably exaggerated the opposition of
these people to the inroads of capitalist consumerism in general; for example,
laboring people in eighteenth-century England readily shifted from home-brewed
beer to standardized beer produced by huge, heavily capitalized urban
breweries.
To answer the question of why consumers became so eager to buy, some
historians have pointed to the ability of manufacturers to advertise in a
relatively uncensored press. This, however, hardly seems a sufficient answer.
Mckendrick favors a Veblem model of conspicuous consumption stimulated by
competition for status. The “middling sort” bought goods and services because
they wanted to follow fashions set by the rich. Again, we may wonder whether
this explanation is sufficient. Do not people enjoy buying things as a form of
self-gratification? If so, consumerism could be seen as a product of the rise of
new concepts of individualism and materialism, but not necessarily of the frenzy
for conspicuous competition.
|
|