The continuing significance of social structure in liquid modernity

Abstract

Bauman’s liquid modernity has been influential among consumer culture theorists in recent times. A key element of this thinking is that old social structures have broken down, consumers being less encumbered by their structural origins and freer to pursue more diverse lifestyles. The ensuing three commentaries critically examine the claim that old social structures have become less relevant. Caldwell and Henry detail some of the critiques of Bauman and point out that consumers’ management of liquidity versus solidity can be usefully understood using a Bourdieusian lens. Their arguments are informed by contemporary literature focusing on social class, family life cycle and mythical role preferences. Thompson and Kumar argue that inconspicuous consumption masks social class-based differences in the distribution of resources that act to maintain structural inequalities. Parsons and Cappellini explore how conditions of liquidity mean that some people can accrue value much more easily than others. These authors argue that the enabling capacities that prevail under conditions of liquidity (e.g. flexibility, idiosyncratic taste) are not new but rather have long been known to act as enablers of success among advantaged classes.

Re-thinking brand extension theory: Parents, siblings and off-spring or landlords and tenants?

“…Parsons and Cappellini (2020) further problematise the notion of the nuclear family when they draw on the work of Skeggs ( 2004) who highlighted the negative impact normative notions of family, such as mothering, have upon those who do not have the social or material resources to be valued within social structures. While Caldwell and Henry (2020) and Parsons and Cappellini (2020) were concerned with considerations of structural inequalities and the desire or ability for specific people to thrive within conditions of liquidity, their work illustrates the increasing diversity in family structures and how the notion of the nuclear family does not offer a high level of resonance within the age of liquid modernity. Indeed, the family metaphor deployed in theorising brand extension assumes a Western, patriarchal nuclear family (see Folbe, 1991Folbe, /2019.…”

“…The appropriation of brands has typically been analysed through the brand community lens, where consumers develop, co-create or prosume brand meanings (Hatch and Schultz 2010; Black and Veloutsou, 2017). While highlighting the distributed nature of brand value creation, Mumby (2016) refers to Bauman’s (2000) liquid modernity and acknowledges the value of brands in offering a stable identity within a society where institutional moorings for identity, including family structures, are significantly eroded (Caldwell and Henry, 2020).…”

“…As the practices around brand management and value creation are changing (Hewer, 2022) with dynamic brand ownership models emerging (Oakley et al, 2005) and the meaning of, and value extracted from brands often created in a networked culture across ‘spreadable’ media (Jenkins et al, 2013), locating metaphors that are fit for purpose is critically important for marketing theory. As the notion of family is similarly changing (Caldwell and Henry, 2020), a challenge for marketing theory is whether the brand family metaphor continues to be helpful in theorising contemporary practices around value creation, specifically through brand extension strategies or whether other metaphors might be more apt to incorporate the emerging diversity in brand extension strategies.…”

“…With the age of liquid modernity, family structures have become more diverse. Caldwell and Henry (2020) recognise the ‘increasing variety of non-traditional family forms and high divorce rates’ (p. 553). They suggest that the nuclear family, bound in predominantly white, middle-class family values, continues to shape myths of family even for those not living within such family structures.…”

Who Has the Right to the Coworking Space? Reframing Platformed Workspaces as Elite Territory in the Geomedia City

“…More than a century ago, Thorstein Veblen (1899/1994) recognized that conspicuous consumption of luxurious consumer goods served as a tool of distinction for the bourgeoisie vis-à-vis the poorer classes. However, status consumption has always been “messy” (Caldwell & Henry, 2020, p. 551), and contemporary sociology has directed increased interest toward inconspicuous consumption as well as conspicuous non-consumption . While not interchangeable, both concepts have been used to refer the consumption of goods and services that may be affordable but nonetheless are valorized within a smaller, exclusive community (Currid-Halkett et al, 2019).…”