后现代消费

International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences January 2012, Vol. 2, No. 1 ISSN: 2222-6990 96 www.hrmars.com/journals Postmodernism and Consumer Psychology: Transformation or Break? Manel Hamouda Ph.D Student Faculty of Economic Sciences and Management -Tunis-Tunisia Phone number: +21698611476 E-mail:h_manel@yahoo.fr Abstract The research’s aim is to identify the postmodern consumer characteristics. Studied through its main conditions (Hyperreality, Fragmentation, Decentered subject, Reversal of production and consumption and Paradoxical juxtaposition of opposites), postmodernism seems to affect some psychological traits of the consumer (Materialism, social desirability, locus of control and social identity). We tried to generate a number of assumptions. The check of these assumptions could answer us whether these psychological characteristics have been radically influenced by postmodernism and in this case, the consumer would have undergone a break or the effect is partial and it is only a simple transformation within the consumer. Keywords: postmodernism-psychological traits-consumer 1. Introduction Postmodernism is a term which was used at first in the architecture in the 70s (Jencks, 1987). The launch of this concept is widely due to Bell (1973, 1976) who asserts that postmodern era begins with the end of the bourgeois model that characterized the modernity. He places, moreover, the modern period, the era of the development of the capitalism, between the late 18th Century and the seventy decade of the 20th Century, which is over a period about 200 years. From the 80s, postmodernism was often, used in various fields of academic research to identify the subtle differences related to modernism (Featherstone, on 1991). As he touched all areas of academic research, postmodernism has gradually developed in marketing, becoming for some researchers a new paradigm (Firat and Venkatesh, 1995). It has appeared in marketing mainly through North American authors like Hirschman, Holbrook, Firat and Venkatesh, and gave rise to major contributions (Saren, 2011), including a reflection on the paradigms to apprehend the complexity of postmodern consumption (Hirschman and Holbrook, 1992), or the role of marketing in consumer society (Firat and Venkatesh, 1993; Badot and Cova 1992a, 1992b). Indeed, many researchers (Baudrillard, 1968, 1986; Cova, 1995; Featherstone, 1991; Firat, 1991, 1992; Firat and Venkatesh, 1995; Firat, Sherry and Venkatesh, 1994; Firat, Dholakia and Venkatesh, 1995; Holt, 1997) and contributed to the definition of the International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences January 2012, Vol. 2, No. 1 ISSN: 2222-6990 97 www.hrmars.com/journals foundations of postmodern society: the postmodern society which is synthesized in five points: hyper reality, fragmentation, Reversal of production and consumption, Decentred subject, and finally, the paradoxical juxtaposition of opposites. So in this article, we will try to analyze the effect of these conditions on consumer and more specifically on some psychological characteristics which seems deeply affected by the advent of postmodernism. 2. Postmodernism and the rise of Postmodern Marketing Since the mid-sixties, the society derives, to a society described as post- industrial or post-capitalist and in a more universal way, towards a "postmodern" society. First, introduced in the field of architecture (Jenks, 1987), the concept of postmodernism quickly extended to all other fields of art, then in the society as a whole (Lyotard, 1979, 1988). Thus, we will discuss, first, the shift from modernity to postmodernity which led to a metamorphosis of Marketing, which will be described also as "postmodern." 2.1. From Modernism to postmodernism Modernity usually refers to the period of time and modernism refers to the ideas, philosophical and socio-cultural conditions that characterized the modernity. Modernism is represented through the following conditions (Firat and Venkatesh, 1995; Piquet and Marchandet, 1998). The reign of reason and the establishment of rational order, the emergence of the cognitive subject; The development of science and the emphasis on material progress through the application of scientific technologies, representation and the sole purpose of art and architecture, the emergence of industrial capitalism, the separation of the production sphere (which is institutionally controlled and public) from the consumption sphere (which is private). However, a number of critics have been addressed to modernism and its foundation that prepared the advent of postmodernism, which not only reveals paradoxes in the construction of the modernist project, but also provides radically different perspectives for the society. So, postmodernism defended the possibility to break with the tyranny of innovation at all costs by agreeing the right to reconnect with the past. Thus, in front of the principles of modernity: the idea of progress, scientific rationality and the advent of science that led to the disenchantment of Western societies, the industrial mass production, the bureaucratic hierarchy and the state-nation, the contradictions of modern society between sacred and secular, between rural and urban, between public and private spheres, between mind and body and finally between the dualistic and the global thinking, new principles succeeded, those of a postmodern society (Firat and Vankatech, 1995). So as we have said at the beginning, we must distinguish between postmodernity and postmodernism as follow: Postmodernity: as a time period succeeding modernity with its characteristics and thus its influence on individual behavior, which will orients the researches and related methodologies . Postmodernism: as a paradigm, which arises as antipositivist? It shows into research posture, the deconstruction and the fragmentation of the hierarchy of values and knowledge when they formed a part of a paradigm or model (Balandier, 1985). International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences January 2012, Vol. 2, No. 1 ISSN: 2222-6990 98 www.hrmars.com/journals 2.2. From Modern Marketing to Postmodern Marketing The rise of postmodernism was considered as a new conceptual framework which will allow a better understanding of current societal changes, including consumption and marketing practices (Badot and Cova, 1992b, Brown, 1993; 1994; Svanfeldt and Cova, 1993; Vankatesh and Firat, 1993; Firat, Dholakia and Vankatesh, 1995; Hirschman and Holbrook, 1992). In modern marketing, the focus is on the rationality of the actor. It aims is to identify, understand and satisfy the consumers needs, rather than simply to persuade them to buy the product. Hence, the role of modern marketing management consists in an optimal combination of decision variables identified through the "4 Ps" mechanism (McCarthy, 1960). The sales function is presented in the marketing mix as a combination of factors by analogy in the production function (Lancaster, 1971). In this perspective, modern marketing is considered as a science because it is respond to the requirements of the scientific community as far as: there is a basic unit of exchange and transactions which marketing seeks to discover the uniformities and regularities between them, besides, theories, laws and explanations of marketing are testables. With the advent of postmodernism, other visions on lifestyles, on economics (Milberg, 2007) as well as on the relationship between communities, will appear. The marketing, also, was touched by postmodernism, which has emerged in this field thanks to north American authors as Hirchman and Holbrook (1992), Firat and Venkatesh (1993) and has resulted in contributions of paradigms allowing to apprehend aspects of postmodern consumption practices (Addis and Podesta, 2005), and understanding consumer behavior (Cova and Cova, 2001; Badot, Cova, 1992a, 1992b; Hetzel, 1995, 2002). The most recent definition of postmodernism Marketing is proposed by Gerrit Van Raaij (1998): "Postmodernism is a cultural episode, characterized by a pluralism of styles (of consumption) and ideologies, a need of hyperreality and self- expression through consumption ". But it should, however, note that also in Marketing, there is a distinction between postmodernism and postmodernity like the distinction we have already made between the different uses of the term "postmodern" in general. In Marketing, Badot and Cova (1994) called: Postmodernity: a shift or a break with modernity: a new social order that emerges and seems to adapt marketing practices to deal with the individualized and tribalized consumption. Postmodernism: a philosophical perspective rich in specific epistemological assumptions and methodological preferences to rethink the general principles of marketing theory. All researchers do not agree on the marketing proposals applied to postmodernity. Indeed, we find in these proposals the duality individualism / tribalism. This duality in the vision of the transformation of marketing expresses itself, even, in a geographical way because north American and Anglo-Saxon propositions recover generally from the postmodern individualism while the Latin propositions deal with the postmodern tribalism. In spite of this difference between the two approaches, they have a common line, the search to be "close to International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences January 2012, Vol. 2, No. 1 ISSN: 2222-6990 99 www.hrmars.com/journals the consumer" (Brown, 1993, 1994). For this reason, that during our research, whose primary purpose is to understand the consumer, we need to get closer to consumers, which is, in fact, the purpose of both proposals, so, we will use both approaches simultaneously to better understand the postmodern consumer profile. 3. Postmodern conditions and the emergence of postmodern consumer The most commonly used conditions which made a consensus from authors and researchers in postmodernism as suggested by Firat and Shultz (2001) and Brown (2006), are those advanced by Firat and Vankatech (1993), who put postmodern conditions into five categories, hyperreality, fragmentation, reversal of production and consumption, decentered subject and paradoxical juxtaposition of opposites. We trying to explain each condition, and present the consequences on the consumer. 3.1. Effects of Hyperreality on consumer and the postmodern consumption According to Perry (1998), the definition of the phenomenon of hyperreality may represent only an attempt because, given the multiplicity of its manifestations, it is difficult to develop a theory and a definition of this phenomenon. However, it is possible to consider the Hyperreality, as the condition of the constitution of social reality through powerful meanings and representations of simulation or "hype" (Firat and Venkatech, 1993), which will affect the process of consumer’s identity construction and his consumption experiences: - Identity construction: identity construction process plays an important role in the way that, the consumer perceives itself, how he identifies his purpose and his reason for being and to form a meaningful life. (Van Raaij, 1993; Firat et al, 1995). The hyperreality which illustrates these facts is, mainly, found in communication forms. Indeed, through these communication forms, the signifiers can be detached from their original referents and their original meanings and, therefore, become "floating". They can be attached to new meanings (Firat and Vankatech, 1993). These new meanings simulated, leading to a new reality thanks to the communication power. It is a community of consumers who ascribe these new meanings of a brand . (Van Raaij, 1993). - The simulation of reality and consumption experiences: The hyperreal culture seems to show other aspects and one of these trends is the will of consumers to prefer simulation to "Reality". Postmodern consumer feels more playful pleasure of the simulation rather than the standing quest for moments of "reality”. The urban buildings and postmodern places, in fact, favor this trend (O'Connor and Wynne, 1998): Disneyland or Las Vegas city are the most quoted examples by postmodernists (Baudrillard, 1987). The hyperreality is a variable which can produce a consumption experience able to reenchant the consumer (Ritzer, 1999; Filser, 2002, Hetzel, 2002). In fact, simulated environments appear to be more spectacular than the real world (Ritzer, 1999), this feature is an advantage since the postmodern individuals are seeking for the spectacular and the experiences (Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982), this quest enrolling a more general trend : the International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences January 2012, Vol. 2, No. 1 ISSN: 2222-6990 100 www.hrmars.com/journals emotions quest (Graillot, 2005). Besides, according to Riou (1999), the show accompanying the hyperreality contributes to a greater success from postmodern individuals. 3.2. The fragmentation of individual and consumption experiences on postmodern society In postmodernity, fragmentation is another major feature of society. Its theoretical formulation is due to Lyotard (1984) who, absolutely, refuses any form of universalism in social life. Fragmentation, actually, invades all activities, including consumption, where everything is discontinuous and disjointed. The fragmentation of consumer experiences is mainly manifested through the fragmentation of consumption moments which are becoming increasingly fragmented (dinner, watch TV...). The consumer lives a series of independent acts of consumption (Firat and Vankatech, 1993), and each act requires a different product, which fills a specific need. These multiple moments of consumption affect the consumer himself, because the fragmentation of life experiences often requires a fragmentation of the self to fully live each situation encountered: For example, managing relationships in workplace, requires for women a different identity than the one used to manage these relationships at her home. (Firat and Shultz, 2001). Even motherhood has become a lifestyle decision in postmodern era, motherhood identity is a choice among so many others, an option that some women can choose to reject (Jagger, 2005). In each encountered situation there is the possibility of the existence of incompatible or contradictory personalities in the same individual, called the "multiphrenic selves." (Firat, sherry and vankatech, 1994). "Multiphrenic self "is a representation of the effect of postmodern conditions on consumer behavior (Firat and Shultz, 2001). This postmodern consumer trait shows that he accepts all the options and can be presented under different identities rather than to conform to a single one. Postmodern consumer is, then, a fragmented individual who lives fragmented and paradoxical consumption moments (Teschl, 2007). Postmodern individual is encouraged to change the image frequently and therefore, he trying to adapt himself to new roles and new identities (Decrop, 2008). Another consequence of this postmodern condition is that fragmentation allows individuals to integrate into postmodern society, the integration that goes through the sharing of consumption experiences. Then, postmodern individual belongs to diverse groups gathering people who maintain a strong emotional link by opposition to the strong social links of modern society (Maffesoli, 1998, and Oettgen Oettgen, 2004). Postmodern consumer as a fragmented and multiphrenic subject (Firat and Venkatesh, 1995) can belong to several communities, and assume their contradictions and paradoxes. In marketing, the community is often used as synonymous of the postmodern term of “tribe" whether in the real world (Maffesoli, 1998) or virtually (Vignolles and Galan, 2009). 3.3. Decentered subject and postmodern consumer The modernist narratives “subject” has moved away from the centre and confused with the object. Postmodern discourse and culture, even, take away the human subject of its privileged status; there is rather recognition of the influence of objects to guide the desire of International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences January 2012, Vol. 2, No. 1 ISSN: 2222-6990 101 www.hrmars.com/journals the individual (consumer) (Baudrillard, 1981; Foucault 1975). Postmodernists see modernity narrative as mythical or illusory. According to them, there is confusion between subject and object (product) (Hassan, 1987; Jameson, 1983). The postmodern subject is also decenterd as far as he is no longer a single but a multiple subject changing according to the situation he encounters (Gergen, 1991;Solomon, 1992). With the decentered subject condition, postmodernism highlights the confusion between subject and object in consumption and raises the question of control in their relationship. Specifically, the relationship between subject and object becomes more complicated, which makes redoubtable the assumed superiority of the subject. Often, objects have power over subjects as the example of the “desire’s objects “(Baudrillard, 1990). The actions of each individual are determined by the design and structure of his products. We can so, conclude that the role of the individual is to enable products to perform their functions and not products that enable the achievement of the individual goals. We are thus, reached the inverse of the vision supporting that products are designed to enable human being to achieve his goals. We observe this trend also in commercials as for Pepsi-Cola or Energizer batteries which have sometimes described the brand object as the hero while consumer, the human subject is at the margin, decenterd, enjoying the show. Some authors even speak about “interpassivity “which is defined as the delegating of consumer’s enjoyment to an object (Carù and Cova, 2008). Decntered subject condition suggests a potential link with the locus of control in the postmodern consumer’s life. Indeed, the modern subject was the peculiarity of having a presumption of control over the objects and their destiny. On the other hand, postmodern decentered individual seems to have a paradoxical orientation in terms of locus of control. Is he in control of his destiny because he is a participant in the construction of reality, or does he see that the conditions will be determined by forces outside his control, because he recognizes that power of things outside the human subject? (Firat and Shultz, 2001). Finally, “self objectification” is another effect of the decentered subject condition. The confusion between subject and object is reinforced in part by the fact that consumers tend to view themselves as marketable items: Examples of the objectification of human beings become more and more frequent (Guilbert, 2002; Levine, 1998; Sacks, 1982).Indeed, multiplicity of images and personalities is not adopted by consumers in a deliberate way, it is rather imposed by cultural expectations that are already interiorized on society. People are always in quest to having the image that enable them to succeed. In this sense, fashion becomes metaphor of culture (Faurschou, 1990; Sawchuk, 1987). The role in the self-construction as an object is related to some products (such as luxury goods or cars) or practices (Gomez and Fosse- Ozcaglar, 2007) for example, many consumers (male and female) use mo