A brief history of thrift

Alison Hulme

• Publisher: Manchester University Press
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN: 9781526128836
• eBook ISBN: 9781526128850
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Ciencias sociales
• Subtopic: Antropología cultural y social

This book surveys 'thrift' through its moral, religious, ethical, political, spiritual and philosophical expressions, focussing in on key moments such as the early Puritans and Post-war rationing, and key characters such as Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Smiles and Henry Thoreau. The relationships between thrift and frugality, mindfulness, sustainability, and alternative consumption practices are explained, and connections made between myriad conceptions of thrift and contemporary concerns for how consumer cultures impact scarce resources, wealth distribution, and the Anthropocene. Ultimately, the book returns the reader to an understanding of thrift as it was originally used - to 'thrive' - and attempts to re-cast thrift in more collective, economically egalitarian terms, reclaiming it as a genuinely resistant practice.

1

Towards a theory of thrift

Capitalism as the parasite of thrift

Mention thrift to most current-day academics in marketing, cultural studies or even cultural geography circles and one of the first theories they mention will be that of Daniel Miller in his A Theory of Shopping (2013). Using evidence from ethnographic research in north London, Miller argues that whilst shopping trips often begin by being about the pleasure of spending money, they frequently shift to focusing on saving money, and play upon traditional notions of restraint and sobriety being somehow more respectable than immediate gratification (Miller, 2013). Miller describes everyday shopping as containing two values – that of being thrifty (‘saving’ money), and that of expressing devotional love to significant others (spending). In doing so he adopts a dichotomous perspective of shopping as either provisioning or hedonic. Provisioning shopping is ‘everyday’, conducted out of necessity, and according to a utilitarian normative model in which individual desires are suppressed (2013). Whereas with hedonic shopping, goals are concerned with the satisfaction of particular individual desires, and the shopper regards it as an extravagance that lies outside the constraints of necessity.

For Miller, then, hedonic shopping is about self-indulgence and ‘treat’, whilst provisional shopping is concerned with thrift and short-term sacrifice in order to reach more substantial long-term goals, making it a more ‘moral’ act (2013).¹ Key to Miller’s overall argument is the idea that thrift defers the ‘treat’ to a future moment and that this deferral is pleasurable for the shopper as part of sacrifice, in similar ways to which sacrifice is conceived of by anthropologists. In other words, essentially, this sacrifice is about love (in the widest sense). Miller argues its purpose ‘is not so much to buy the things people want, but to strive to be in a relationship with subjects that want these things’ (2013:148). (This could be rather neatly turned on its head in the case of thrift as thriving by formulating it thus – thrift is not so much about not buying the things people want, but about striving not to be in a relationship with subjects who want these things!)

Miller goes on to say that supermarket marketing strategies make thrift appear to be available everywhere, so that often shoppers need no price information to feel that they are practising thrift (2013:53). As Miller says, ‘it is possible for shoppers to regard virtually the whole of the shopping expedition and the purchase of almost any specific item within that expedition, not as an act of spending at all, but as an act of saving’ (2013:56). Such is the extent one might argue that capitalism has embedded itself in the idea and structures of thrift. Or, as Miller puts it later on, ‘consumer thrift is now the centre piece of global economic ideology’ (2013:136). (This also speaks rather nicely to the idea mentioned in the introduction that thrift is not in decline, but rather, is re-marketing itself as ‘saving through spending’ rather impressively!)

In contrast to Miller, in ‘Thrift Shopping: Combining Utilitarian Thrift and Hedonic Treat Benefits’, Fleura Bardhi and Eric Arnould propose a dialectical perspective of shopping that challenges Daniel Miller’s positioning of thrift and treat as in opposition to one another (Bardhi and Arnould, 2005:223). They argue that the role of thrift can coexist with that of treat and that the related shopping practices are at once economic and hedonic, enabling consumers to negotiate and realise a diversity of moral and experiential experiences (2005:223). (This argument is also asserted by Sherry, 1990, and Falk and Campbell, 1997). Bardhi and Arnould’s thrift shoppers ‘understood and practiced thrift in coexistence with spending (shopping)’ (2005:228), and can be contrasted to Lastovicka et al.’s ‘frugal consumer’ who understands being thrifty in terms of the sacrifice of present consumption for savings and a better future (1999). Bardhi and Arnould argue that thrift is not entirely about deferred gratification, as Miller suggests, because there is hedonic pleasure to be gained in thrift shopping that collapses the categories of thrift and treat (2005:228).

Bardhi and Arnould usefully challenge Miller’s theory, allowing in the idea that thrift is often about the pleasure of a treat in the present through a thrifty purchase. This is an improvement on Miller’s theory as it enables a conception of thrift whose logic is not some kind of future gratification. Viewed Miller’s way, thrift remains bound within a normative economic framework in which the individual is posited as a kind of never-ending calculating machine, who walks around weighing up present sacrifice against future satisfaction as they shop. This individual is the one that most mainstream economic history is only too familiar with, Smith’s ‘economic man’ who, through careful consideration of spending and saving, embodies consumerism and thrift and fuses them together in a symbiotic relationship (or perhaps more accurately, a parasitical one on the part of consumerism!). Bardhi and Arnould’s shopper has rather more agency to portray themself as operating based on alternative logics of consumption, an important acknowledgement, and a theme to which this chapter will return in the following section.

Of course, Miller’s shopper does exist too, or at least any shopper behaves like Miller’s shopper at certain moments. It is the emphasis that mainstream economists and indeed mainstream renditions of economic history have placed on this economic man, whilst ignoring alternative versions, that is the issue here. In fact, the parasitical attachment of capitalism onto thrift, as embodied by Miller’s shopper, has enabled the progress of capitalism across the centuries. This is to make a rather large statement, that, contrary to mainstream accounts in which thrift is seen as having faded away as capitalism grew stronger, only rearing its head at times of national crisis such as war or economic depression, thrift has been a consistent undercurrent to capitalism.

This mainstream portrayal of the history of thrift is captured well in Calder’s critique of it. He complains that the view of history so frequently provided is one that portrays a slow decline from the morals and thrift of the early Puritans, to the wild consumerism of the present day – the story of American saving and spending as the story of a ‘fall from the heights of thrift on which previous generations lived and contributed to national greatness’ (2013:362). Despite basing his comments on the portrayal of American economic history, it can be applied more widely, as the same story is often told of the Western world more generally – economic history as a slow slide from thrift into spending. This is John Galbraith’s view in his famous The Affluent Society; it is also apparent in David Tucker’s The Decline of Thrift in America. Aligned to this is Daniel Bell’s view in The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism that the instalment plan and instant credit was the single major factor that destroyed the Protestant ethic. Similarly, Terrance Witkowski plots a history of frugality in the United States from the Puritan fathers to Voluntary Simplicity and up to the present, but essentially concludes that consumerism is the stronger historical strand and that consumers always returned to their previous habits. Calder calls these depictions of declining thrift ‘the myth of lost economic virtue’, but makes the point that it has not stood up well against more recent historical accounts that acknowledge contrary evidence and posit thrift as ‘a surprisingly adaptable ethos operating across time and economic contexts’ (2013:362). For Calder, thrift is dynamic and versatile.

This book argues that not only has there not been a slide from thrift to spending (at least not in a straightforward way), but that thrift has been a consistent underlying current in economic history, being practised, or at least preached, for various reasons throughout history. It has been present through good times and bad. In fact, capitalism could not have survived without thrift. Or rather, it could not have survived without appropriating thrift as frugality (whether that frugality was concerned with saving or spending).

Thrift as capitalism’s Other

There is another side to this story of parasitical capitalism clinging to the thrift that keeps it functioning, however. Not all thrift can be put to the service of capitalism. Miller’s shopper is not the only type of shopper. Economic man does not represent all people, all of the time, in fact he probably represents rather fewer people than mainstream economists might prefer to believe. Indeed, this book intends to debunk him as the assumed representative of all consumers, and provide another model, who is concerned not only with surviving through economic efficiency, but with thriving through economic, social and other forms of provisioning. This alternative human subject occupies a larger place in history than mainstream accounts have allowed for.

Whilst the survival of capitalism due to requisitioning thrift as frugality is crucial to acknowledge, as explained in the previous section, the contemporary scholar need not accept that capitalism has conquered thrift and that thrift must now only be seen as the handmaiden of capitalism. There are many historical ‘moments’, and indeed present practices of thrift, that successfully resist or hinder capitalism, despite its talent in re-appropriation. As Calder argues, if we can only see just how dynamic and versatile thrift has been throughout history then we can see how it does not only belong to ‘Puritans and moralists, but also to peasants, monks, revolutionaries, conservationists, environmentalists, civil rights activists, philanthropists, social protestors, and others committed to an ethos of restraint’ (2013:363–364). There is a clear alternative history of thrift that can be mapped philosophically as a strong lineage from Aristotle’s notion of thriving, to Thomas Aquinas, to Marx, to Thoreau, and to present-day radical green movements. (This will be explored further in the conclusion.)

In order to release this alternative shopper, and alternative history, it is necessary to move beyond analysing thrift within the narrow constraints of the moment of exchange. Both Bardhi and Arnould, and Miller, remain fixed within the shopping ‘moment’ as it were, analysing thrift as part of a set of economic constraints and frameworks, as opposed to seeing it in wider terms. In fact, what is striking about Miller’s theory of shopping, and the thoughts on thrift embedded within it, is not so much that the nature of thrift revolves around pleasure and sacrifice (which it certainly can do); but that Miller contextualises this within the narrow framework of shopping, as opposed to our everyday interactions with material things more generally. In doing so, he makes thrift something that is engaged in purely as part of economic transactions, thus trapping it within its more recent etymological definition – that of frugality. In fact, Miller’s is a theory of frugality, not of thrift, and therefore disavows thrift of carving out a place for itself outside of mainstream capitalistic practices, or at the very least practices that aid capitalism.

David Evans makes a related argument, this time differentiating between thrift and frugality, but defining them both within the etymological definition of thrift understood as frugality. Like Miller, the result is that thrift is denied its sense of thriving. Evans’ distinction between thrift and frugality is based on different ‘scales of care and compassion that are mobilised through the (non)consumption practices associated with each’ (2011:551). Referring to Miller’s understanding of thrift as being about preserving household economic resources in order that they remain available for future acts of consumption that enable expressions of love and devotion, Evans defines thrift as ‘the art of doing more (consumption) with less (money) and so thrifty practices are practices of savvy consumption, characterised by the thrill and skill of “the bargain”’ (2011:551). He argues that ‘thrift is essentially a circular process of spending to save and saving to spend. As such, it does not place a restraint on consumption, it merely seeks to save money whist doing so and then use monies saved to engage in further acts of consumption’ (2011:552). This is a standard definition of thrift as it has come to be understood as frugality, although Evans does agree that, as a result, thrift can be understood as ‘fully consummate with the prevailing logic of consumer cultures in which there is a normative surrounding high level of consumption’ (2011:552).

Frustratingly, however, Evans then goes on to differentiate thrift from frugality, which he says has been under-theorised, and which he defines as the act of being ‘moderate or sparing in the use of money, goods and resources with a particular emphasis on careful consumption and the avoidance of waste’ (2011:552). For him, frugality is unlike thrift, because it is at odds with the normative expectations of consumer cultures. In reality, frugality, as it is understood by Evans, is only at odds with Keynesian logic, not with capitalism more generally. What he calls frugality is simply a different type of thrift, one that existed more commonly prior to consumer capitalism. In fact, in many ways what he makes is a false distinction between thrift (as wise shopping) and frugality; a distinction that only stands up when viewed in the context of relatively recent history, i.e. Keynes to the present and the onset of a specifically consumer capitalism. To put it differently, thrift for Evans is simply consumer thrift. Such definitions show how deep not only thrift as frugality, but thrift as consumer thrift, has embedded itself in the thinking around such issues.

Actually Evans’ distinction between thrift and frugality (the latter often being ecological), is what this book posits as the difference between other forms of thrift and ‘ecological thrift’. None of these forms of thrift when practised escape thrift as frugality, but ecological thrift is concerned with thriving in a far wider sense than simply economically. Evans even talks about there being parallels between ethics and morals, with thrift relating to morals (for example, the providing for our immediate family as a duty), and frugality relating to ethics (for example, the duty of care of distant others). In this, he draws again upon Miller, suggesting the same can be said for Miller’s theory. This exact distinction between morals and ethics is the one this book makes between thrift (understood as frugality), and thrift (understood as thriving).

To be fair, neither Evans nor Miller were attempting a theory of thrift primarily, but this contextualising of the practice does mean historical reality is not well represented. Historically, people have engaged in thrift for all sorts of reasons – to get to heaven, to live a more fulfilling life, to challenge capitalism, to be respectable, to be part of a war effort. To assert frugality as a separate practice to thrift based on some greater ethical motivation is to cut off huge chunks of history and geography – practices of thrift as thriving at different times, in different places. Therefore, it is important to prise thrift away from the historical trajectory it has found itself part of, in order that it might be more easily claimed as a genuinely resistant practice, one that seeks to create collective and economically egalitarian forms of living that are available to all, not only those who can afford to choose them.

What stops this alternative history of thrift from rising immediately to the fore? Firstly, that it is based on thriving, when it is a history of frugality that dominates the currently accepted version of thrift’s place in economic history. But, on a deeper level, it is the acceptance that it is capitalism and its ‘spirit’ that has been the main influence on economic history. (And actually, even Weber does not claim this, his only claim being that Puritan ethics aided a spirit of capitalism!) In this version of events, thrift serves capitalism, because it is assumed the major ‘urge’ is towards capitalistic ways of being.

There are two points to make in relation to this. Firstly, it should be acknowledged that there have been theories that play on the idea that it was a Puritan ethic that drove the spirit of capitalism. Notably Colin Campbell’s well-known work The Romantic Ethic and the Spirit of Modern Consumerism (2005), which argues it has been romanticism, not Protestant rationality as Weber suggested, that has formed the backdrop for the capitalist spirit. Campbell sees this romanticism as linked to the rise of the idea of love as the ultimate emotion and reason for marriage, an increased secularity and the rise of fashion. This romantic thrust, according to Campbell, is what was behind the consumer revolution, not simply the urge to emulate, as Veblen argued. However, despite disagreeing on the driver of the spirit of consumerism/capitalism, Weber and Campbell both accept this spirit of capitalism as the only historical const...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Figures
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• 1 Towards a theory of thrift
• 2 Religious thrift: Puritans, Quakers and Methodists
• 3 Individualist thrift: Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Smiles and Victorian moralism
• 4 Spiritual thrift: simplicity, sensuality and politics in Henry Thoreau
• 5 Nationalist thrift: making do, rationing and nostalgic austerity
• 6 Consumer thrift: Keynes, consumer rights and the new thrifty consumers
• 7 Ecological thrift: frugality, de-growth and Voluntary Simplicity
• Conclusion: Thoreau in the city
• Afterword
• Notes
• References
• Index