Conversations on Society and Culture

Abstract

This article takes a “then and now” perspective on social and cultural issues in the Journal of Consumer Research. The author had conversations with preeminent scholars who reflected on theoretical developments over time, what we know, and what we should be most concerned with now and in the future. This article can be used as a call to action for future consumer research dealing with society and culture.

Gee, not much has changed in the last 50 years, has it? Whether your lens is a global one, or one based in the U.S., where the Journal of Consumer Research (JCR) began, it should be clear that while we have made progress in understanding and solving some problems under the broad rubric of “society and culture,” there are still many unanswered questions. For example, in 1974, there were concerns about consumption and persuasion in children and families reflected in JCR’s first issue, with several articles on marital roles in decisions (Davis and Rigaux 1974), husband–wife influence in family purchases (Ferber and Lee 1974), articles on children and advertising persuasion (Goldberg and Gorn 1974; Robertson and Rossiter 1974), and overall consumer socialization (Aldous and McLeod 1974; Ward 1974). Those issues still resonate in consumer research (and JCR) today. Although the first issue did not directly address environmental issues, by its second issue, in 1975, an article in JCR was discussing the “socially conscious consumer” (Webster 1975). Yet 50 years later, we now appreciate the global scale of the environmental problem, and its interconnected, systemic properties. And although encouraging consumers to do their part for the environment still makes some sense, our understanding of how business and government benefit when the onus is moved to the consumer has also advanced. Perhaps we can conclude that the social and cultural problems and issues have not changed, but work in JCR has helped us understand them better. The articles in this section of the Special Anniversary Issue continue our learning in this domain, with articles on race, disability, wealth inequality, and climate change/sustainability.

Before diving into those new and exciting articles, I would like you to join me in a conversation with some prominent marketing scholars. In summer 2023, I interviewed nine scholars on the broad topic of society and culture. So that I can use just their first names in what follows, I would like to thank Eric Arnould, Zeynep Arsel, Russ Belk, CB Bhattacharya, Susan Dobscha, Eileen Fischer, Linda Price, Debbie Roedder John, and Carolyn Yoon for the gift of their time and insights. Of course, what follows is a very condensed version of our conversation, but I hope readers find it as illuminating as I did!

WHERE HAVE WE BEEN?

First, I wanted these scholars’ reflections on what we have learned over the last 50 years, and importantly, what we still need to know. First, let us reflect: what have consumer researchers learned about society and culture? These sages tackled this broad question in different ways, but with a surprising degree of consensus. At a very high level, there was a recognition that consumer culture, at least in the developed west/global north, is culture. That at a very macro view, our culture and society is defined by consumption, for better or for worse. Zeynep pointed out that consumption is an important part of the dynamics of how societies structure themselves and how they change, and Eric argued that consumer researchers should realize that at least in industrialized economies, what we study is the essence of the culture, and we should be able to recognize both the positives and the negatives of that consumer culture.

In reflecting back over the 50 years of JCR, several scholars sketched out the progression of our thoughts on consumers and consumption. Susan pointed out that this movement perhaps started when we began seeing consumers not purely as economic beings, and not purely as psychological beings. Linda stated that initially we largely saw consumers as individuals who calculated everything and then made their choice. CB pointed out that the field was just sort of consumerism-oriented; we assumed consumers spent a lot of time (so we spent a lot of time researching) which brand to buy, which features are important, all those utility models, and how choices get made. We were mainly focused on what would boost consumption. Russ also discussed how we have moved from a more psychological bent to a more cultural bent, to look at the impacts on society. Eileen summarized this progression as “We’ve gone from seeing consumers as some semi-efficient information processors through seeing them as emotively expressive identity crafters and now, I think, seeing them as embedded agents in complex social structures….” But, as Carolyn pointed out, we know a lot about how consumers make deliberate conscious decisions. But the societal cultural influences have been much harder to nail down. There is always more work to be done!

Linda argued that we can sometimes forget how revolutionary these changes were, as the field started “to rethink how we were thinking about the people we were studying and trying to build out from that to understand culture in a different way.” And, as JCR began as a North American journal, this progression was largely centered on western, middle-class, white consumers and culture. But that is also changing. As Russ pointed out, there are many societies and cultures. We could do a much better job of forging research alliances across cultures and across societies, including indigenous cultures in our own countries. His basic advice is to get out of our society and culture, which does not necessarily mean traveling anymore. “It’s eye-opening. And it’s wonderful. And we’re privileged to have this great freedom that we have in academia, so take advantage of it!”

Eileen also wants us to take a global perspective to constructs and contexts and ask, for example, what our constructs (created in the global north) look like in other contexts, such as the global south? In other contexts, some other constructs will surface. She talked about the concept of rhizomatic knowledge, where ideas will travel underground, metaphorically speaking, and resurface somewhere else, looking very different. The connections would be subtle, and not hierarchical, but under the surface. Susan pointed out that classic demographic variables such as gender and race are starting to be interpreted not just as moderators, but as complex, nuanced, potentially power-laden factors that impact consumers’ lives and decisions. Debbie pointed out that there has been a dramatic rise in bi-cultural consumers, in the U.S. and around the world, and she is not sure how many consumer researchers understand this important cultural shift.

Summarizing, JCR researchers have expanded from a singular focus on an information-processing consumer in an American society focused on consumption culture, to a more fully fleshed-out understanding of a culturally embedded, global, and intersectional consumer, who both influences, and is influenced by, the society and culture in which they consume. But there is so much more to learn. So, I also asked these scholars their views of important issues we should focus on in the next decade or so. For junior scholars who may be reading this, you should be buoyed by this section: there are so many problems out there to solve.

WHERE SHOULD WE GO?

While there may have been a little less consensus on what problems to focus on, there was unanimity on the view that we need to tackle big, important problems. Several people mentioned that of course consumer researchers will not be the only ones tackling big societal problems, but we have an important (and useful) perspective. Let us start with sustainable consumer choices. CB pointed out that we could study, for example, why and how consumers could be motivated to buy less, to choose quality over quantity, the role (if any) of brand purpose in driving choice. He discussed that his own research on “doing well by doing good” was too instrumental; businesses should just do the right thing because it is morally right. But what does that look like? How is a moral brand different? Is purpose-driven the same thing as moral? Carolyn talked about the massive implications of climate change and sustainability for consumption, and Eric pointed out that we could study how consumers change the organization of their lives, which could include circular economies, cooperative consumption, sharing economies, and even the radical choices consumers make, such as the choice to live in an eco village. Russ pointed out aspects of sustainable choices that we have not investigated in depth yet; a fascinating example was dematerialization: once, we could know someone from the books on their shelves, or from their music collection. As reading and music moved online (with a positive environmental aspect) consumers now must make an effort to share their tastes with others. What are the implications of that?

Ethics came up several times in our conversations. In addition to CB’s comments in terms of sustainability and morality, ethics came up in my conversations with Susan and Zeynep as well. Both talked about the ethics of artificial intelligence (AI), and while acknowledging that we are not ethics or legal scholars, we could learn from other disciplines and create a fulsome ethical framework for consumption and marketing, particularly as it relates the emergence of AI and its effects on culture and society. Zeynep points out that in AI there are legal and ethical grey zones that have implications for consumers.

Virtually everyone discussed inequality and discrimination in markets, with its many unanswered and important issues. Eileen argued that inequitable treatment of marginalized groups has had a resurgence, and Susan argued that we cannot have inclusive marketing until we realize exclusion exists. Russ points out that as a field, we do not study the gap between those with access to digital technologies and those without access as much as we used to. But this is a mistake: emerging technologies (such as virtual reality tools and spaces) will require financial resources that most of the world cannot afford. He points out that there is a marginalized aspect to the digital consumption world that we often overlook.

Zeynep pointed out that we are finally beginning to address issues like race and gender in consumer research, which also reflects a cultural change, but she is also worried there may be a backlash to that, which we are already seeing in the global public sphere. She stated that there has finally been progress made on these topics that we were not supposed to do research on; will that be dialed back? Susan pointed out that after some early feminist work in JCR in the 1990s, there has not been much direct work on gender, but that is changing. Russ argued that we (as consumer researchers) are really just beginning to get intersectional and to study race, gender, and disabilities more seriously. He thinks we are beginning to ask “Whom do we represent? Whom do we consider?” And Eileen also wants to see more work on gender, directly paying attention to gender without some context where it is embedded into a larger issue. They all want to encourage continued momentum on gender equality, and Eileen “fears that if we don’t keep it front and center, we are just going to suffer such backlash.”

Eric worried about premature intellectual maturity, the idea that we know all that there is to know about consumption already. There are so many big problems left to solve, but he feels that the spaces for novelty and experimentation of ideas have shrunk. We need to fight against becoming too rigid and ossified. Scholars, particularly young scholars, will face pushback if they tackle big important problems. But we need that! Susan pointed out that consumer researchers have tried to contribute to those big conversations, such as on climate change, but have not got very far in making real differences. She thinks that we need to partner with those who can help our work make a real difference, including companies. She acknowledges that change is slow, especially within academia, and it is frustrating for big thinkers and forward thinkers. But we must keep trying to address the bigger issues.

CB agreed that as a discipline we are lagging in our research on the big questions and that we need to be collaborating with businesses on the major challenges. But he points out that we need access to businesses, and that is not always forthcoming. But we need to be tackling big problems! Debbie also pointed out that if consumer researchers want to capture some of the excitement that is happening around data and digital analytics, then we are going to have to pay a little more attention to what the problems are, and what kinds of situations and challenges people have in the marketing business world. She argued that to maintain our importance as a discipline, we need to bring all that wonderful theoretical substance and methodological skills to issues that companies are concerned about. As she said, “We have to step it up.”

Regardless of the big problems we decide to study, Linda advised us to stop thinking so theoretically and truly focus on those problems. She would like us to become more abductive, more context engaged, and more multi-method, using multiple roots, and multiple sources of knowledge, multiple types of scholarship. While mentioning thorny problems such as gun control, refugee issues, and opioid use, she stated that “We need to become less theoretical and less sort of an army of agents trying to protect the theory and more an army of agents trying to understand these incredibly complex problems.” I think I will leave the last word to Carolyn, who stated “I want our young people to take the risk and be brave and do really great work that actually speaks to how these sorts of big disruptions and changes affect consumers.” Be brave!

SOME FINAL BIG THOUGHTS ON SOCIETY AND CULTURE

One of the more fascinating questions I asked (and thanks to Stacy Wood for the idea) was “If you had 5–10 Minutes to advise a global leader, what would you tell them as a consumer researcher?” Boy, did the answers run the gamut! While these comments are intended as advice for world leaders, they also point to intriguing opportunities for consumer research questions and issues.

Zeynep argued that we have been tasking ordinary consumers with the responsibility to take care of lots of issues that world leaders are abdicating, from public health to privacy. Corporations and other organizations have been abdicating their responsibilities and putting a lot of pressure on ordinary citizens, who may not be equipped to handle it. She used the fascinating example of her robot vacuum, which also happens to come with a camera one can access outside the house, and mused about whether ordinary consumers understand the trade-offs inherent in some of these new technologies; corporations write long disclaimers and leave protecting their personal privacy in the hands of consumers.

Several scholars would advise world leaders about sustainability issues. Eric would tell them that “…consumer culture that has unlocked an enormous amount of potential and joy and pleasure for a small number of people… we need to think about how to redistribute the benefits of this system in new ways that don’t mean that we’re going to burn up the planet.” Russ pointed out that the hypocrisy of the more affluent parts of the world telling the less affluent, in essence, do not consume like we consume. But he points out that “We need to decouple consumption aspirations with the realism that we have a finite resource world.” And Linda would tell world leaders that the conversation on sustainability has been hijacked to become political rhetoric when it should not have. It is a problem we all should be working on. Words such as sustainability may work against us if the words we use label something as political or progressive. These scholars are confident that our community of researchers can contribute to that discussion and can think about those kinds of problems from the perspectives of insights into consumer behavior at the micro, meso, and macro levels. And so am I.

I hope you have found these conversations spurred your thinking and sparked some new (and big) ideas. But it is also quite possible that as you read, you began to counterargue: these problems are too big, too controversial, too complex, etc. So I would like to introduce you to the work of JCR scholars delving into these sorts of problems right now, in this special issue.

In the following pages, you will read an article on inequality, two on sustainability, one on race, and one on disability. First, Trujillo-Torres et al. (2024) use the context of the cancer care market in the U.S. to explore the construct of a value hierarchy, resulting in (among other important outcomes) inequality of resource distribution, with effects on consumer power and agency. In the sustainability space, Mende et al. (2024) take a retrospective look back, examine what consumer research does (and does not) know concerning the UN Sustainable Development Goals, and point out how consumer researchers could incorporate these goals into their research and teaching. Following that, Huang and Wong’s (2024) article points out an interesting “reuse and resale cycle” with clear implications for more sustainable consumption. Next up in terms of the big issues, Grier et al. (2024) tackle race in consumer research, taking a look back over 50 years at JCR, but also pointing the way forward to a consumer research focus that foregrounds racial dynamics. Finally, Grewal and van der Sluis (2024) investigate why disability accessibility is still not universal and offer practical interventions for marketers wanting to increase disability accessibility. In all these articles, these researchers (both established and new scholars) are rising to the challenge of tackling big problems, and I am grateful to them.

Enjoy!

June Cotte

Author notes

June Cotte (jcotte@ivey.ca) is Kraft Professor of Marketing at the Ivey Business School, Western University, Canada.

The author thanks the experts for the fascinating conversations and insights that formed the basis of this article.

REFERENCES