Design History Society

Consumption and the Rhetorics of Need and Want

Author(s): Colin Campbell
Source: Journal of Design History, Vol. 11, No. 3 (1998), pp. 235-246
Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of Design History Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1316257
Accessed: 02-07-2016 04:32 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Design History Society, Oxford University Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to Journal of Design History

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sat, 02 Jul 2016 04:32:50 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Colin Campbell

Consumption and the Rhetorics of

Need and Want

Both academic and popular discussion of consumption tend to centre around two dominant discourses or rhetorics. These are

those of need (satisfaction) and want (desire). These rhetorics relate to contrasting models of human action with associated

ideologies. The need rhetoric has its origin in a Puritan-inspired utilitarian philosophy of comfort and satisfaction, while the
want or desire rhetoric has its origin in a Romantic-inspired philosophy of pleasure-seeking. Although both ideologies and their

associated rhetorics are institutionalized in contemporary society, it is the former that tends to have greater legitimacy. This
paper looks at the various relationships which it has been suggested exist between these two rhetorics in theories of
consumption, examining these as they have been represented historically, bio-psychologically and sociologically. Finally,
materialfrom the author's current research on shopping is used to demonstrate how these two rhetorics are related to gender
roles, as well as employed by individuals to help them accomplish their consumption goals.
Keywords: consumption-discourses of consumption-marketing-production-rhetorics of need and want-sociology

Introduction: The Need and Want Rhetorics

It is very noticeable how theories of consumption goods in such a way that the result is their
generally fail to shed much light on the actual acquisition. This author has set out elsewhere2 a
processes through which consumers come to theory concerning the manner through which the
acquire goods. Rather the tendency is for such desire for goods is generated (and extinguished),

theories to omit detail of this kind, sketching out including an outline of how this might occur at
instead either the general principles which are the point of sale, but there are still issues to be

presumed to be at work-as in neo-classical eco- resolved before it could be said that we have an
nomics-or the social and psychological functions adequate understanding of the processes of acquithat consumption is presumed to fulfil. Thus sition. For although it is crucial to know how
Baudrillard's neo-Marxist, semiotic theory of con- consumers come to need, want or desire goods,

sumption, in which commodities are not valued as well as select between alternatives that promise
for their use but understood as possessing a different degrees of satisfaction at differing 'cost',
meaning which is determined by their position while understanding any personal or social funcin a self-referential system of signifiers, tells us tions that the use and display of consumer goods
little about the detail of consumption practice; may fulfil, all this still leaves out of account the
while Bourdieu, rather like Veblen before him, is question of how it is that goods are actually
more concerned to outline how consumption is purchased. That is to say, what is it that an
involved in the creation and maintenance of social individual has to do, at the point of sale, in
relationships of domination and submission than order to 'accomplish' the purchase of a good.
to outline the mechanics of acquisition.! The This paper is an attempt to move a step closer to
consequence of this omission is that little is such a goal by focusing on one process that
known about how individuals interact with appears central to acquisition: how it is that
Journal of Design History Vol. il No. 3 ? 1998 The Design History Society 235

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sat, 02 Jul 2016 04:32:50 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

consumers legitimate their acts of purchase. For it There is no reason to assume that the example
is clearly not sufficient for an act of purchase to given above is unusual, but that, on the contrary,
take place for a consumer to both 'want' a good the majority of acts of consumption (and not
and possess the resources to purchase it. There is a merely those of purchase) are facilitated by
further ingredient: the consumer must also feel means of an accompanying rhetoric. Now it is
that the purchase is a 'legitimate' act to perform. true that such a rhetoric may not always be
An example will illustrate this point. articulated aloud, as it was in the above example.

A woman shopping in a department store with Obviously this is unlikely (but not unknown) if
her friend finds a dress that makes her quite the consumer is alone; in which case, it may well
ecstatic, declaring, 'Now, this is really nice-I be subvocalized-either consciously or subconlike this!' Noting that they have it in her size sciously. But then in many routine acts of conand judging the price to be 'not unreasonable', sumption this is probably unlikely. However,
she contemplates purchase. It is at this point, even here we can still assume that a rhetoric is
however, that she remembers that she had been at hand should the consumer feel the need to
looking for something very different from the draw on one. That rhetorics, or 'vocabularies of

smart cocktail dress she is currently holding in motive', of this kind play a critical part in facilher hand, which is not at all like the 'everyday itating social action and interaction was noted by
outfit' she had told her friend she was looking for. C. Wright Mills, who described these as 'reasons
Undaunted, however, she launches into a little for action which are asked for when there is an

speech, beginning with the words, 'Well, actually issue of justification as well as explanation',5
I do really need a new evening dress because observing, like Quentin Skinner, that unless such
otherwise the navy-you know-the off-the- appropriate 'vocabularies' are available actions
shoulder . . . doesn't really fit . . . ', etc.3 Now it will not be undertaken.
is clear that these comments, although apparently Research conducted by means of focus groups
addressed to her friend, are really self-directed, with shoppers reveals the clear presence of two
and constitute a rhetoric intended to persuade such rhetorics or discourses accompanying every-

herself that she had acceptable reasons for pur- day practices of consumption.7 These are the
chasing the dress in question. In this case, that is rhetoric of need and the rhetoric of want. The
what happened, as the woman-convinced in her former can be recognized by the use of the word

own mind that she was justified in making the 'need' itself, together with such synonyms and
purchase-paid for the item and took it home. related terms as 'requirement', 'necessity' (or
What this example illustrates is the critical role 'necessities'), 'lack of' and 'deficiency'. Also
that a consumption rhetoric can play in facilitating included in this discourse are the associated

purchase. Obviously we cannot be certain that the antonyms such as comfort, ease, satisfaction or
dress would not have been purchased had such a utility. By contrast, the discourse and rhetoric of
rhetoric not been available. But what is clear is want consists-in addition to the term 'want'
that the shopper felt a real need to be able to itself-of such words and phrases as 'desire',
invoke one. Now, although there is a tendency for 'fancy', 'love', 'attracted to' and 'fond of', whilst
people (including social scientists) to assume that here the associated antonyms relate to boredom
individuals who wish to legitimate their self- and indifference. Also included in this rhetoric are
seeking behaviour are simply faced with the prob- words and phrases associated with the concept of
lem of tailoring their moral and ethical language taste, that is, the faculty that is assumed to govern
to fit their desires, it cannot be that simple. For, as our likes and dislikes.
Quentin Skinner notes, 'It must [also] be in part Although in everyday speech individuals often
the problem of tailoring his [sic] projects in order use terms from these two discourses interchange-

to fit the normative language available.'4 Hence ably, switching the words 'need' and 'want'
we can assume that the existence of a rhetoric of around as if they were synonyms, this does not
need was a crucial factor in facilitating the pur- refute the above contention because the research

chase in question. revealed that the distinction was clearly under236

Colin

Campbell

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sat, 02 Jul 2016 04:32:50 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

stood by consumers.8 In other words, although in pleasure is to expose oneself to certain stimuli in
some conversational contexts the use of language the hope that they will trigger the desired

was relatively careless and imprecise, a close response within oneself. This means that the two
analysis of people's usage in the actual contexts orientations tend to exclude each other, requiring,
of consumption-especially at the point of sale or as they do, that attention is focused on contrasting

when discussing actual or contemplated pur- aspects of the environment.9

chases-does suggest not only that consumers It is this contrast between an essentially 'objectare aware of the critical difference between these ive' and an essentially 'subjective' criterion that
two discourses but that they actually employ makes it possible to decide which rhetoric is being
them differentially in order to achieve their con- employed in those cases where the speaker has
sumption goals. It is for this reason that they are been careless in the choice of words. For if what is
referred to here not simply as discourses, but also being referred to really is a need and not a want
as rhetorics. then other people will be in a position to assess its
The contrast between the two rests essentially genuineness. If, on the other hand, it is not really a
on the distinction between satisfaction and pleas- need but only a want, then no one other than the
ure. Satisfaction concerns a given state of being, 'wanter' will be in a position to judge whether this
indicating a disturbance that has been followed by person really does desire the item in question.

action to restore the original equilibrium. Hence a This is to say that there are always others, often
state of need refers to a state of deprivation, one in experts, to help assess an individual's needs;

which there is a lack of something necessary to indeed the individual may well be unqualified

maintain a given condition of existence; in this to identify these (as in the case of the nature of the
respect need-driven consumption is essentially medical treatment that a patient 'needs'), whereas
replacement consumption. By contrast, pleasure no one, expert or not, is in a position to assess the
is not a state of being so much as a quality of nature of an individual's wants.10
experience. Not properly a sensation, it is a

favourable judgement passed on a pattern of gin and L

sensation, while desire is the term used to refer

to a motivational disposition to experience such These rhetorics are not simply found in the everypatterns. These two orientations to the world are day speech that accompanies consumption; they
thus very different and frequently come into are also found in more general discussions of the
conflict with one another.8 topic including serious academic and intellectual

For example, objects possess utility and hence discourse. In this respect each rhetoric relates to,
the capacity to provide satisfaction. Thus needs and ultimately stems from, a fundamentally difcan be met by real things. Food can relieve ferent philosophical perspective and tradition of
hunger, clothes provide warmth, houses shelter, thought. The first, the need rhetoric, is a primarily

etc. Pleasure, on the other hand, is not an intrinsic Puritan-inspired and utilitarian tradition, one that
property of any object, but is a type of reaction approves of need-based conduct yet condemns

individuals have when encountering certain sti- what is seen as want-based action. By contrast,
muli. In fact, pleasure is not really the property of the second, the want or desire rhetoric, is largely

stimuli. It is not that some stimuli are pleasant and romantically inspired (although its origins go
others unpleasant; rather it is that pleasure is a back further than the Romantic Movement), and
judgement made on stimuli. Hence whether given in celebrating desire or want is equally scornful of

sounds will be judged pleasant or unpleasant, for need-based action. Consequently the two disexample, will depend, upon other things, upon an courses confront each other, as do the social
individual's 'taste', that is to say upon their classes that are their principal carriers. It is of
characteristic judgements. To search for satisfac- course mainly the bourgeoisie, or middle classes,
tion-that is, to set out to satisfy needs-is thus to who espouse the philosophy of need, ranking

engage with real objects in order to discover their comfort over pleasure, while the philosophy of
degree and kind of utility, while to search for pleasure-expressed principally in Bohemian, or
Consumption

and

the

Rhetorics

of

Need

and

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sat, 02 Jul 2016 04:32:50 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Want

237

youth-centred, counter-culture movements-ele- iously, is assumed to stem from dubious and

vates pleasure over comfort.1" It follows from suspect motives. In other words the assumption
this that although both rhetorics, together with is that no one guided by high-minded or noble
the discourses that support them, are institutiona- motives would ever become involved in such
lized in contemporary society, traditionally they doubtful pursuits. Consequently this is viewed
have not had an equal degree of societal approval. as a field of activity in which the worst of
Rather it is the need rhetoric that has had the human motives prevail-motives such as pride,
greater legitimation. greed or envy. These judgements are not just

The Puritans were principally responsible for apparent in intellectual discussions of consumpthis marked value bias in our culture. Although tion; they are also embodied in prevailing theories
conventionally regarded as uncompromisingly of consumption. Indeed they are central to almost
hostile to 'the world', they did not, in fact, con- all such theories and any one who uses these
demn all forms of consumption; for they accepted theories thus tends to import these moral judge-

as legitimate consumption directed at satisfying ments into their own accounts."4

needs. What they fiercely condemned was any

expenditure in excess of what was considered Need and Want Discourses in Theories of
necessary to meet these needs.12 In other words, Consumption and Society

it was want consumption that was the object of

their disapproval. So powerful and persistent was It is very noticeable that academic discussions of
their attack on all and any activity that could be consumption tend to employ theories that themconsidered to fall into this category that modern selves revolve around the need-want distinction.
culture still bears the marks of their crusade For example, when consumption is discussed in a
against 'luxury' and 'excess'. 13 historical context it is common to encounter a
This is apparent as far as academic and intel- sequence in which need consumption and its
lectual discussions of consumption are concerned. rhetoric is presented as characteristic of tradiFor in the majority of these consumption is either tional societies, while the want (or desire) rhetoric
viewed as a matter of satisfying 'genuine' needs is characteristic of modern, that is to say indus(what is sometimes called 'basic provisioning'), trialized, ones.15 The essential justification for this
and consequently as a legitimate activity, or it is is the typical portrayal of 'traditional' societies as
viewed as largely a matter of want gratification largely unchanging (or at least being perceived as
and desire in relation to goods and services which unchanging by the people who lived in them). In
are viewed as non-essential (that is 'luxuries'). In such a society 'what is' and 'what has been' have
this case it is typically regarded as a superficial legitimacy, while 'what might be' is more likely to
activity prompted by ethically dubious motives. be a cause for fear than desire. Given that the
Rarely is consumption discussed without such a pattern of life is fixed, then so too is the pattern of
marked value bias of this kind being manifest. consumption, with the result that an increase in
But then there is also an apparent bias against consumption for some is seen as threatening the
consumption itself. For it is not just in economics satisfaction of all.16 This means that the purchase
that production is valued more highly than con- of new items always means the purchase of 'fresh'
sumption (even if consumption is theoretically the items, rather than different or novel ones. In other
end and purpose of all production). In intellectual words justifiable consumption in such societies is
circles generally consumption, even when essentially replacement consumption, the item
prompted by needs, is often regarded as relating purchased resembling the one that is worn out,
to the trivial and the superficial, and consequently lost, broken or destroyed. Consequently a need
contrasted unfavourably with 'real', significant rhetoric predominates. What characterizes
activities and matters such as prevail in the modern societies, by contrast, is the emphasis on
world of work, religion or politics. What is want or desire consumption because in this case
more, involvement in such non-serious activities, the members of such societies expect continuous
and especially the tendency to take them ser- change; consequently 'what might be' has legiti238

Colin

Campbell

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sat, 02 Jul 2016 04:32:50 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

macy over what is or what has been. Justifiable model is added to the historical thesis it no

consumption is by no means limited to questions longer becomes necessary for individuals to

of replacement, but is largely aspirational in char- move upward through the system for their patacter. Consequently the expectation of change is tern of consumption to change. Rather it is a case

linked to the perceived legitimacy of efforts to of modernity coming to them as an increased level
improve one's life chances. It is this striving for of affluence for society as a whole results in
'progress', linked to the centrality accorded to people in lower classes being able to afford the
pursuit of happiness, that characterizes modern 'luxuries' that formerly only the rich could afford.
society and accounts for the importance accorded This process is usually referred to as the 'trickle
to the want rhetoric. down' effect, or alternatively as the 'affluence
There is also a biological-cum-psychological escalator'.19 In either case it describes a process
version of this sequential progression from need through which yesterday's luxuries become
to want, one affecting individuals rather than today's necessities, or wants become translated
societies. This model is best expressed in into needs.20

Maslow's theory of the 'needs-hierarchy'.17

Maslow proposed that human desires are innately The Need-Want Rhetorics in Academic

given and exist in an ascending hierarchy. Basic

physiological needs-food, sleep, protection,

etc.-must be met first. Then come the needs for It can be seen that the contrast between needs and

safety and security, leading to the need for order wants, together with the associated classification

and structure. Once these are met there is a third of products into necessities and luxuries, has a
level when the needs for love and belonging prominent place in almost all theories of conbecome significant; the fourth relates to self- sumption. However, attempts to provide a

esteem; while the fifth and last concerns 'self- secure ontological grounding for the distinction
actualization'. Although Maslow does not use have proved less than successful, although estab-

the term 'want' it is clear that his hierarchy has lishing the precise nature of the difference
the same structure as a need-want division, with between 'need' and 'want' has long been a con-

the similar implication that some human goals are cern of philosophers and social theorists.21 Ninemore 'basic' than others. The assumption is that teenth- and early twentieth-century thinkers as
the most urgent and basic 'needs' demand prior- diverse in outlook as Adam Smith, Karl Marx,
ity (for example, those for food and shelter); Thorstein Veblen and Werner Sombart were all
however, when these are met, less critical concerned with this question. The issue they
needs-those more resembling wants and tended to focus on was whether or not human
desires-take over. beings could be said to have any basic or uni-

Finally there is a sociological version of this versal needs, and if so what these might be. If

same hierarchy, one in which the satisfaction of these could be identified, then so by contrast
wants and desires is similarly dependent on the could any 'unreal' needs-needs that, lacking a
prior satisfaction of needs. In this case, the divi- basis in an universal human nature, would in

sion between people who are completely taken up effect be no more than 'false wants'.

with satisfying their needs and have neither the This problem still preoccupies contemporary
time nor the resources to gratify wants and desires social theorists figuring prominently in the othercorresponds to social classes, with a 'luxury' or wise very different analyses of modern society

'leisure class' at the pinnacle of the social hier- offered by Kenneth Galbraith22 and Herbert Mararchy. Thorstein Veblen is the best-known expo- cuse,23 and more recently in the neo-Marxist

nent of this view.18 According to this model social formulation of Preteceille and Terrail;24 while
mobility is itself represented by the transition references to 'false' needs or wants are not hard
from need satisfaction to want satisfaction as to find in discussions of modern consumer soci-

people move up through the system of social ety.25 Kenneth Galbraith is one influential writer
stratification. However, when this sociological concerned with this issue who offers an analysis
Consumption

and

the

Rhetorics

of

Need

and

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sat, 02 Jul 2016 04:32:50 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Want

239

of contemporary consumer society similar to the another kind of need, those that are not 'univerhistorical thesis outlined above. However, per- sal', 'urgent' or 'independently established', but
haps because of his economist's training he does are, on the contrary, created by the society itself.
use the word 'want' throughout rather than Here the assumption is that 'wants' do not arise
'need'. The need-want division is central to his from any inherent force within consumers, but are
argument none the less; it is just that he refers to deliberately manufactured within them through
needs as 'urgent wants'. the agencies of advertising and salesmanship.
Galbraith accepts that the modern or 'affluent' These wants Galbraith assumes are 'non-urgent'
society is characterized by an economy geared to and hence in some way not really 'wanted',
the gratification of wants rather than the satisfac- observing, 'Is a new breakfast cereal or detergent
tion of needs. Indeed, this is the crux of his so much wanted if so much must be spent to
criticism, arguing that people are spending their compel in the consumer a sense of want?'29
money in pursuit of wants rather than satisfying However, attempts, such as this by Galbraith, to
needs. He writes that 'the fact that wants can be specify 'basic' or 'given' human needs are unconsynthesized by advertising, catalysed by sales- vincing and look suspiciously like a disguised
manship, and shaped by the discreet manipula- way of expressing moral disapproval of sociotions of the persuaders shows that they are not economic developments. For the concept of need

very urgent. A hungry man need never be told of is inescapably relative and subjective, as what
his need for food.'26 In other words, the wants that individuals can be said to 'need' is simply whatpeople struggle to satisfy in contemporary con- ever they require to maintain their current way of
sumer society cannot be real needs (or 'urgent life. In addition, such attempts fail to take into

wants', in Galbraith's terminology). It is clear account the extent to which needs are themselves
from this argument that Galbraith, like many of the creation of the society and culture into which
the thinkers mentioned earlier, believes that one an individual is born. Even Maslow's efforts to
can identify 'independently determined wants', claim a hierarchy of need is suspect on these
that is, 'natural' or 'universal' wants (i.e. needs), grounds, as there is evidence that what he calls

ones that are not the product of advertising and 'higher' needs, such as social status and prestige,
salesmanship. Galbraith uses Keynes' term 'needs can actually displace 'lower' biological ones.29
of the second class' to refer to these latter 'created' The concept of need only makes sense if it is
wants, many of which he identifies with those that specified in relation to a given or established way
follow from emulative striving a la Veblen.27 of life; whatever is necessary to maintain it being,
In this respect the whole rhetoric or discourse of in effect, a real-that is existing-'need'. Thus
'need' in Galbraith's work derives from the how much food people 'need' to eat each day,
assumption of a common human nature, one for example, and of what kind, depends on their
that is programmed with certain universal, fixed current condition and way of life. It will vary
and unchanging needs (or 'wants', in Galbraith's according to whether their job involves strenuous
terminology). This, of course, is an assumption physical effort or not, or whether they are ill or
that underlies classical economic thought in gen- pregnant, for example. In a similar way, people's
eral, where the wants/needs that drive consumers material needs will vary according to circumto act have an unquestioned, taken-for-granted stance. Some people 'need' a car in order to get
status. From this perspective wants are prepro- to work, others do not; many people 'need' a
grammed into consumers and will clearly mani- telephone in order to do their job, others do not;
fest themselves when the appropriate goods are celebrities and important statesmen 'need' a
made available (assuming that consumers have bodyguard, most people do not; and so on.
the resources to purchase them). Consequently It is important to stress that many of these
there should be no need actively to persuade 'needs' have little to do with the dimension of
consumers to 'want' products. liking, wanting and desiring. Indeed they may
The assumption that there are needs of this kind clash with it directly. Thus the celebrity or polileads, in turn, to the presumption that there is tician may actually dislike the fact that he or she is
240

Colin

Campbell

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sat, 02 Jul 2016 04:32:50 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

permanently accompanied by a bodyguard. The tantly, so that they can see their own conduct as
athlete, such as the boxer or cyclist, may actually both intelligible and justifiable.
dislike all the extra pasta he is required to eat by There are a variety of ways in which the two
his coach. Few people like paying either their road rhetorics can be deployed, either singly or
tax or their television licences-yet most people together, so as to perform this function and
'need' them. Generally speaking therefore it hence facilitate consumption. On the face of it,
seems reasonable to conclude, as Agnes Heller straightforward need-driven purchases of the
suggests, that nearly all the distinctions made kind that predominate in traditional societies

between 'true' and 'false' needs are untenable seem to present the consumer with least difficulty
for 'all needs humans recognise as real should in this respect. The fact that particular products

also be considered as real';30 a position which have been 'consumed' and now need to be
makes it quite clear that those who insist on replaced appears to present an uncomplicated

such a distinction are making what is basically justification for purchase. However, the very

an ideological assertion.31 straightforward nature of these purchases also

tends to make buying them rather a 'chore' for

The Rhetorics of Need and Want in consumers, who generally dislike this kind of
Consumption shopping, preferring activity directed at satisfying

desires. Hence the problem here is more likely to

In theoretical discussions of consumption, be that of motivation than justification. This is

whether within economics or the social sciences revealed by the fact that the lists people make
more generally, there has been a tendency to when about to go shopping typically consist of
assume that individual consumers do not need items that are needed, rather than of items that are
any justification in order to employ their scarce 'wanted'. That is, shoppers put toilet rolls, washresources to purchase goods and services. Rather ing-up liquid, birthday cards and the like on their
it has traditionally been assumed that all that has lists, just in case they forget to buy them. Howto be explained is how exactly consumers allocate ever, they also return from their shopping trip
these resources in their efforts to satisfy their with items that were not on the list. Usually these
wants. The reason for this is that purchases are are products that were wanted, not needed. Conpresumed to be 'prompted' (if not actually sumers rarely need to make a note of what they
caused) by consumers who become aware of the want, as there is little likelihood of forgetting
presence of needs and wants within themselves. one's desires. How consumers cope with the
However, given the difficulty of establishing the 'chore' of simple, replacement need-shopping,
existence of independent needs and wants (the therefore, is to 'compensate' or 'reward' them-

principal evidence advanced being, in most cases, selves for performing it by indulging one or
the acts of purchase such concepts are themselves more 'wants'.

supposed to explain), it is just as reasonable to However, apparently straightforward needassume that these concepts are invoked by con- purchasing can be more complicated than it
sumers to explain and justify purchases that they seems as issues of wanting or desiring may be
wish to make for other reasons (or indeed for none encountered 'within' the parameters set by need.
that they can articulate). For consumers are just as That is to say, individuals intending only to
aware as economists that purchases are supposed satisfy a 'need' may find themselves having to
to be prompted by wants and needs. Looked at in make a 'want-based' judgement as well. Thus
this light these concepts fulfil the critical rhetorical going shopping with the intention of replacing a
function for consumers of enabling purchases to damaged, lost, broken or merely consumed
be made. This is not simply so that they can item-which, as noted, is archetypical need condefend their action, should they be challenged to sumption-individuals may find that the original
explain why they bought the product in question is no longer available, and while there are a
by another person (such as a friend, spouse or variety of alternative products each equally capeven a market researcher); it is also, more impor- able of fulfilling the same function these come in
Consumption

and

the

Rhetorics

of

Need

and

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sat, 02 Jul 2016 04:32:50 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Want

241

shapes, styles and colours different from the ori- spectacles that is, as opposed to sun-glasses) are a
ginal. So now they are forced to decide which of 'need' purchase. Not only do people generally
the various products that fulfil the need is the one talk about 'needing glasses' rather than about
they 'want'. This is not a dilemma encountered by 'wanting them' but the identification of the need
the ideal-typical traditional consumer, for in the is established not by the consumer but by another
pre-modern market-place, where tradition gov- person, an expert, i.e. an optician, who decides on
erns colour, patterning and style as well as size the precise nature of the need. Until fairly recently
and shape, such variation is rarely encountered. that was the end of the purchase process, the only
To the extent that in contemporary society all other consideration-if the glasses were not preitems have a style or fashion dimension such scribed on the National Health-being the issue of
want-related issues tend to be unavoidable even cost. In other words, the expert determined not
in the case of the most mundane need consump- merely the nature of the need but also the product
tion. necessary to meet it. Recent developments, espeIndeed, one of the marked contrasts between cially the introduction of market forces, has not
traditional and modern consumption is that changed the role of the expert in specifying the
modern consumers actually expect to be able to need. What has changed is that this is no longer
indulge their desires while satisfying their needs. the end of the decision-making process. For
Whereas for the traditional consumer, unused to people now 'want' designer frames for their

formulating preferences and expressing per- glasses, and consequently they spend time choossonalized taste, being confronted with a wide ing the frames they 'prefer' from the wide range

choice of ways of gratifying a need can be dis- of, usually expensive, branded products on offer.
turbing and confusing, modern consumers expect Consequently, here too an important want eleto be able to satisfy their wants when gratifying ment has been successfully introduced into what
their needs. Thus the need for food may be was originally a straightforward need-based pur-

satisfied in a variety of ways, say by eating a chase.

hamburger, a Chinese meal or a chocolate bar, Those situations where consumption rhetorics

and this range of possibilities allows for desire are most apparent, however, are likely to be those
and preference to be expressed. The invention of where there is no obvious element of need
the 'menu' illustrates this point rather well.32 In involved-where, in effect, pure desire or wanttraditional societies the food provided at meals ing apparently dominates. For, given that, as
may, on occasion, have been lavish and even argued earlier, want gratification does not possess
varied, but it was none the less given. Generally the same degree of legitimation as need-based

speaking what people ate was what they were gratification, this is where the consumer is most
given to eat, whether acquired via economic aware of the problem of justification. Basically

exchange, as at an inn or hostellerie, or provided consumers only have two strategies to employ in
free by a host. In modem society, by contrast, the such situations. Either they can invent or 'dispurchase of food (as opposed to self-provisioning cover' a need rationalization to legitimate a
in the home) is invariably accompanied by a want-based purchase, as in the example of our
menu, something specifically designed to enable woman shopper and her purchase of the desired
the consumer to indulge his or her wants whilst dress mentioned at the beginning of this paper; or
satisfying a need. they can redefine the situation as one in which
This process of adding a dimension of wanting want gratification is permissible. The alternative
or desire to the gratification of an existing need possibility is to claim that the context of the
does not occur merely because consumers expect purchase as one in which the straightforward
it. It is also in the interests of producers and gratification of wants has greater legitimacy than
retailers to encourage it. Changes in the marketing is normally the case. For example, it could be the
of spectacles is a good recent example of the way consumer's birthday or that she is on holiday; or a
that such a process characterizes contemporary degree of want indulgence has been 'earned'
consumer society. Basically spectacles (ordinary through some personal success or greater effort
242

Colin

Campbell

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sat, 02 Jul 2016 04:32:50 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

at work; or perhaps there has been an earlier This is not, of course, to suggest that men have no
sacrifice of some other desired object, product or interest in gratifying their wants. Rather it is that,
experience. A classic instance of the latter is when firstly, many men see the primary arena for want
someone has actually saved up over a period of gratification as located elsewhere (in the pub, for
time to accumulate the resources for the purchase example, or on the football terraces or golf
in question, or, increasingly in an age of credit, course), while secondly, they do not see the
can claim that the sum involved has been 'saved' activity of shopping as itself offering many opthrough economies made (or bargains achieved) portunities for indulging desires. That is to say,
on earlier purchases. None of these stratagems men presume that shopping only takes place
would be quite as necessary were the product in when the existence of a 'need' has been estabquestion obviously related to a need. lished and they typically see no intrinsic value in
the activity itself, judging it to possess worth

The Situated Rhetorics of Consumption: The purely as means to the end of acquiring goods.

Case of Gender Women, on the other hand, whilst also aware of

the value that shopping possesses as a means to

As the above example suggests, the two dis- this end, are inclined to see the activity as possescourses and rhetorics of consumption are differ- sing value in itself, independently of whether
entially situated in everyday life with each goods are purchased. Consequently they do not
attached to a distinctively different cluster of regard it is as an activity that is only justified by
roles and institutions. Thus while the need rhet- the presence of an unsatisfied 'need', but as also
oric, with its clear instrumental rationale, is most having intrinsic recreational value.
prominent in the world of work and the asso- In other words, it is not just a question of there
ciated spheres of science, technology and medi- being a gender difference in the evaluation of the
cine, the want rhetoric is more obviously attached activity of shopping with women liking it and

to the roles and institutions located in the world of men disliking it. There would appear to be
leisure, recreation and entertainment. What this another, if less marked, contrast in the way in
means in practice is that individuals will find one which shopping is itself defined, with both a male

or other rhetoric more 'available for use' depend- and female version of what the activity involves.
ing on which role or status they find themselves The male view employs a need rhetoric, emphas-

occupying. This is particularly apparent as indi- izing the importance of first clearly defining a
viduals move through the structured periodicity 'need', then the identification of an appropriate

of their lives takes them from the working week- retail outlet where this need can be satisfied
when the need rhetoric is more likely to be 'at through purchase, followed lastly by the least
hand' to the weekend-when the want rhetoric expenditure of effort and money in finding and
becomes 'available' (or, of course, alternatively purchasing a suitable item. By contrast, women

from the weeks spent at work to those spent on tend to apply a leisure or want-desire frame when
holiday.) There is, however, another way in which viewing non-food shopping, especially perhaps
the two rhetorics are institutionalized in contem- clothes shopping, regarding this as essentially
porary society, and this is via the structuring of recreation. It follows that they are inclined to

gender roles. define the activity as enjoyable and to reject any

The research evidence strongly suggests a dif- purely instrumental or utilitarian frame of refer-

ferential attachment to and use of these rhetorics ence. As with all recreation they assume that it is
in the context of consumption by the two genders, legitimate to indulge wants and desires in the
especially in relation to shopping.33 As a general pursuit of pleasure.
rule one can say that men are more inclined to see This differential application of the two rhetorics
shopping as a purchase-driven activity related to tends to explain the mutual misunderstanding
the satisfaction of need, whilst women are more and criticism that was such a marked feature in
likely to view it as a pleasure-seeking activity each gender's view of the other with regard to this
related to the gratification of wants or desires. activity as revealed in the focus group discussions.
Consumption and the Rhetorics of Need and Want 243

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sat, 02 Jul 2016 04:32:50 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Thus women typically complained that men (a) do phrases such as 'a day's shopping' or 'a day in
not spend long enough over the activity, (b) try to town', or (revealingly) 'a day out' are indicative of
visit as few retail outlets as possible, (c) do not this association, as are the phrases 'going round
know what they like (as opposed to what they the shops', or 'looking around the shops', both of
need), (d) tend to buy the first item they see that which contain the clear implication of a pleasurmeets the need, ignoring the dimension of want. able 'trip' or 'tour'.
Interestingly, much of this criticism stems from a Finally it is also important to note that the need
recognition that men are not very good at identi- and want rhetorics are not merely situationally
fying what they 'like', and that they are not, in located in given roles and status but are also

effect, skilled in formulating wants with respect to commonly 'attached' to the goods and services
those goods that have a marked style or fashion themselves in such a manner as to 'assist' condimension. Men, in their turn, often found it sumers in the task of legitimating their purchase.
difficult to understand what women are doing For example, advertisers frequently see their role
when making their 'want' or desire judgements, to be that of providing consumers with an adconsequently perceiving them to be 'taking too equate reason for purchasing the product they are
long' over the process. This is because they seeking to promote, an aim that may equate with
assume that if an item has been found that meets the consumer's need to legitimate his or her

the specified need then there is no longer any purchase. Consequently the copy that accompanreason to delay the purchase. ies an advertisement may actually contain such a
justification, as was the case with the slogan 'Go

Food Versus Non-Food Shopping on, award yourself a CDM, you deserve it!' that

formerly featured in the campaign for Cadbury's

The differential situation of the two rhetorics can Dairy Milk chocolate. Equally, of course, the

also be seen to apply to the single category of design and packaging of a product may be such
consumer activity called shopping, which is itself as to assist the consumer in finding an appropridivided by the more general work-leisure distinc- ate justification to accomplish its purchase.
tion. For both men and women the main distinc-

tion in types of shopping tended to be that Conclusion

between food shopping on the one hand and

what are commonly called 'shopping trips' on This article has attempted to outline some of the
the other. The first is typified by being regular ways in which the need and want discourses and
and local whilst the second is more infrequent and rhetorics are implicated in both the actual prac-

usually involves journeying to a city centre or tices of consumption as well as discussions of

large shopping mall where more numerous and consumption more generally. As has been demonlarger retail outlets are located. strated, the two discourses play a central role in

The former category is generally regarded as all theories of consumption, where the contrast
located within a 'work' framework (even if between them is central to most explanations of

unpaid), since it is viewed as part of the house- the emergence and character of modern consumer
wife role. Consequently it is an activity that both society. As noted, however, the two discourses do
'needs' to be undertaken as well as involving the not have an equal standing in these theories, there
purchase of items that are themselves largely being a strong moral bias in favour of the dis'needed' rather than 'wanted'. By contrast the course of need. As a consequence these theories

other category of shopping-less easily labelled do not simply serve to explicate the phenomenon
but most often described as 'clothes shopping'- of consumption; they also function as rhetorics,
since it not only tends to occur less regularly but structuring moral and intellectual debate on the
also to take place in a different retail locality from topic. Not surprisingly, a similar moral bias is

the regular grocery shop, is generally placed detectable in the everyday usage of these diswithin a leisure rather than a work context. This courses where they function not merely to guide
is shown by the terminology commonly used: and control the practices of consumption but to
244

Colin

Campbell

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sat, 02 Jul 2016 04:32:50 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

provide the justifications necessary for consumers

actually to accomplish the acts of purchasing
goods and services in the first place. In order
that they are available for use in this way the
rhetorics are attached to roles and statuses, as well
as to the goods themselves. However, the two
discourses are not equally available at all times
being differentially situated, especially with respect to gender.

9 For a fuller discussion of this contrast, see Colin

Campbell (1987), op. cit.

10 Of course, individuals can learn the nature of

another's taste and hence be able to make informed
guesses concerning their likes and dislikes (see

Jukka Gronow, The Sociology of Taste, 1997). Desire,

however, is notoriously fickle and less stable than
taste, thereby making the assessment of another's
wants difficult even for those acquainted with the
'wanter'. This is one reason why it can be so difficult
to buy presents for other people. Whereas it is

COLIN CAMPBELL

comparatively easy to buy someone something

University of York

that they need, it is much more difficult to buy

them something that they will want.

ii See Colin Campbell, 'Consuming goods and the

good of consumption', Critical Review, no. 8, 1994,

Notes
This article is the revised version of a paper given at the

conference 'Commonplace Things: Simple Choices'

held at the National Railway Museum, York on 5
October 1996.

PP. 503-20.
12 M. Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of
Capitalism, Scribner's, 1958.

13 For a further discussion of the historical basis of

1 Jean Baudrillard, The Mirror of Production, Telos

contemporary attitudes to luxury, see Christopher J.

Press, 1975; Pierre Bourdieu, Distinction: A Social

Berry, The Idea of Luxury: A Conceptual and Historical

Critique of the Judgement of Taste, Routledge &

Investigation, Cambridge University Press, 1993; and

Kegan Paul, 1984; Thorstein Veblen, The Theory of

John Sekora, Luxury: The Concept in Western Thought,

the Leisure Class, George Allen & Unwin, 1925.

2 Colin Campbell, The Romantic Ethic and the Spirit of

Modern Consumerism, Basil Blackwell, 1987.

Eden to Smollet, John Hopkins University Press, 1985.

14 The first utilitarians, especially Bentham, originally

attempted to include desire-in the form of pleasure-

3 This example is taken from transcripts of interviews

seeking-together with need satisfaction under the

with shoppers; see note 7 below. The stress on the

common heading of 'utility'; see Jeremy Bentham,

word 'need' is in the original.

'An introduction to the principles of morals and

4 Quentin Skinner, The Foundation of Modern Political

legislation', in Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart

Thought, Vol. i, The Renaissance, Cambridge Univer-

Mill, The Utilitarians (1823 edn.), Doubleday, Dolphin

sity Press, 1978, p. XII.

Books, 1961. However, as this tradition of thought

5 C. Wright Mills, 'Situated actions and vocabularies

developed the concept of pleasure was increasingly

of motive', American Sociological Review, no. 5, 1940,

set aside and utility became more and more equated

pp. 904-13, at p. 906.

with need satisfaction. Eventually pleasure was asso-

6 Quentin Skinner, op. cit.

7 Data were obtained through focus group interviews

ciated with 'luxury' with the result that need and

want themselves became contrasted.

with a total of forty-eight men and women between

15 See also Campbell (1987), op. cit.; Neil McKendrick,

the ages of 25 and 45, drawn from socio-economic

J. Brewer & J. H. Plumb, The Birth of a Consumer

groups A, B, CI, C2 and D. They took place on the

Society, Europa, 1982; John Brewer & Roy Porter

premises of a market research agency in Leeds,

(eds.), Consumption and the World of Goods, Rout-

England between October 1991 and May 1992. In

addition, some of the material referred to derives
from interview transcripts kindly supplied by Pasi
Falk who conducted a parallel project on shoppers'

ledge, 1993.

attitudes in Helsinki.

8 See also Colin Campbell, 'Shopping, pleasure and

i6 George M. Foster, 'Peasant society and the image of

limited good', American Anthropologist, no. 67, 1965,
pp. 293-315.
17 Abraham Maslow, Motivation and Personality, Basic
Books, 1970.

The Shopping Experience, Sage, 1992; and Colin

i8 Veblen, op. cit.

19 See Fred Davis, Fashion, Culture and Identity, Uni-

Campbell, 'Shopping, pleasure and the context of

versity of Chicago Press, 1992; Ben Fine & Ellen

the sex war', in Pasi Falk & Colin Campbell (eds.),

desire', in Gosewijn van Beek & Cora Govers (eds.),

Leopold, 'Consumerism and the Industrial Revolu-

Creative Consumption, Spinhuis Press, 1998.

tion', Social History, no. 15, 1990, pp. 151-79; for a

Consumption and the Rhetorics of Need and Want 245

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sat, 02 Jul 2016 04:32:50 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

critique of the 'trickle-down' theory, see Charles W.

vidual's frequently neglect to attend to their 'needs'

King, 'Fashion adoption: a rebuttal to the "trickle-

because they attach priority to their wants. Thus

down" theory', in Stephan A. Greyser (ed.), Toward

many people recognize that they 'need' to lose

Scientific Marketing, American Marketing Associa-

weight, to stop smoking, to eat more fruit, or to

tion, 1963.

take more exercise, for example, but none the less

20 This is also known as the 'revolution in rising

expectations' that occurs in societies undergoing

modernization and development; see Daniel

Lerner, The Passing of Traditional Society: Modernizing

the Middle East, Free Press, 1958.

21 For a discussion of these issues, see Garrett Thomson, Needs, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1987.

22 J. Kenneth Galbraith, The A ffuent Society, New

American Library, 1984.

23 Herbert Macuse, One-Dimensional Man, Beacon

Press, 1964.

24 E. Preteceille & J. Terrail, Capitalism, Consumption

and Needs, Basil Blackwell, 1985.

25 See, for example, M. Featherstone, 'The body in

consumer culture', Theory, Culture and Society, no.
1, 1991.

they fail to do anything to meet these needs. On the

other hand, they are quick to purchase the things
they 'want', including items-like illegal substances,

for example-that are not subject to commercial

advertising and promotion at all.

29 See Herskovits' reference to competitive yam growing among the Ponapean in Micronesia and the

observation that 'families of a man aspiring to

great prestige may go hungry'; Melville J. Herskovits, Economic Anthropology: A Study in Comparative
Economies, Alfred A. Knopf, 1960, p. 462.
30 Cited by Per Otnes, 'The sociology of consumption:
"Liberate our daily lives"', in Per Otnes (ed.), The

Sociology of Consumption: An Anthology, Solum Forlag

A/S, 1988, p. 174.

31 However, for a contrary view, see Len Doyal & Ian

26 Galbraith, op cit., p. 147.

Gough, A Theory of Human Need, Macmillan, 1991.

27 Ibid., p. 144.
28 Ibid., p. 147; Galbraith seems to overlook the fact

The idea that human motivation can be understood

that much of this expenditure is incurred in an effort

in terms of needs at all is now considered by some

to persuade consumers to want one brand of cereal

psychologists to be highly doubtful; see, for ex-

or detergent rather than another. Also his assump-

ample, Michael A. Wallach & Lise Wallach, Psycho-

tion that people will 'naturally' be motivated to fulfil

logy's Sanction for Selfishness: The Error of Egoism in

their 'needs', but have to be 'persuaded' or 'cajoled'

by advertisers (on behalf of the producers and
retailers) into 'wanting' products is unconvincing.
The reverse is probably nearer the mark as indi-

246

Colin

Theory and Therapy, W. H. Freeman, 1983.

32 Alan Beardsworth & Teresa Keil, 'Putting the menu

on the agenda', Sociology, no. 24, 1990.

33 Campbell (1997), op. cit.

Campbell

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sat, 02 Jul 2016 04:32:50 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms