the meaning of alternative consumption practices

Cities, Vol. 20, No. 5, p. 311–319, 2003 2003 Elsevier Ltd.

All rights reserved.Printed in Great Britain

0264-2751 $ - see front matterwww.elsevier.com/locate/cities

doi:10.1016/S0264-2751(03)00048-9

The meaning of alternativeconsumption practicesColin C. Williams* and Christopher PaddockDepartment of Geography, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK

The view that alternative consumption practices (i.e., informal and/or second-hand modes ofgoods acquisition) are used by disadvantaged urban consumers out of economic necessity hasbeen recently opposed by cultural theorists who instead view participation in such practicesas more a matter of choice. To evaluate these contrasting perspectives, this paper reports datafrom 120 interviews conducted in Leicester in England. Finding that the agency-orientatedview of alternative consumption practices is valid in affluent urban populations but economicnecessity remains the principal motive amongst lower-income urban populations, this paperconcludes that for a fuller understanding to be achieved, there is a need to reconcile the dual-istic either/or debates between those promulgating economic necessity and those emphasizingchoice by adopting a both/and approach sensitive to the varying meanings of such practicesacross the urban landscape. 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Informal retailing, Leicester, England, culture, social class

Introduction

In recent years, the previously neglected sphere ofalternative consumption practices (i.e., informaland/or second-hand retail channels) has receivedgreater attention by urban analysts (e.g.,Crewe andGregson, 1998; Williams, 2002). In stark contrast tothe conventional economistic stance that participationin alternative consumption practices is motivatedprimarily by economic necessity (see, for example,Williams and Windebank, 2000), a view has arisen,in part prompted by the ‘cultural turn/s’ in urban stud-ies, that consumers engage in such alternative con-sumption practices out of choice (e.g.,Crewe andGregson, 1998; Gregson and Crewe, 1997a, 1997b;Gregsonet al., 1997, 2002).

The aim of this paper is to evaluate critically thesetwo contrasting readings of alternative consumptionpractices. What is the meaning of alternative con-sumption practices for those who engage in them? Arethey engaged in out of economic necessity or out ofchoice? Indeed, do the meanings attached to suchpractices vary across the urban landscape? If so, how?

To answer these questions, this paper interrogatesfresh evidence gathered during 120 face-to-face inter-

*Corresponding author. Tel.:+ 44 116 252 5242; fax:+ 44 116252 3854; e-mail: [email protected]

311

views in the English city of Leicester on the extentof participation in alternative consumption practicesand why they are used in this urban area as well astheir location and accessibility. This will reveal thatthese practices are used out of choice as sources offun, sociality, display and the spectacular, but onlyfor relatively affluent urban participants. For rela-tively deprived urban populations who more heavilyrely on these alternative consumption practices toacquire their goods, this cultural reading is found tosignificantlyunder-emphasize their on-going materialroles. Amongst relatively deprived urban populations,economic necessity remains the chief reason for usinginformal and/or second-hand modes of goods acqui-sition. For a fuller understanding to be achieved,therefore, this paper concludes that there is a need toreconcile the dualistic either/or debates between thosepromulgating economic necessity and those emphas-izing choice by adopting a both/and approach sensi-tive to the varying meanings of such practices acrossthe urban landscape.

First, therefore, this paper reviews the previousliterature on alternative consumption practices so asto highlight the contrasting perspectives towards themeanings participants attach to engagement in suchpractices. Second, the methods used to analyze theextent to which households use alternative consump-tion practices and why they are used in the city of

The meaning of alternative consumption practices: C C Williams and C Paddock

Leicester are explored. Third, the results are reportedon the extent and unevenness of participation in suchchannels and the different meanings of participationfor different populations. Fourth and finally, theimplications of these findings for explaining partici-pation in alternative consumption practices will bediscussed.

Before commencing, however, a brief outline ofwhat is meant by ‘alternative consumption practices’is required. The working definition adopted here isthat these are modes of goods acquisition that do notinvolve obtaining new goods from formal retail out-lets (including mail order companies and the Internet).Included under the umbrella of ‘alternative consump-tion practices’ are thus all informal and/or second-hand modes of goods acquisition. On the one hand,therefore, there are informal (and usually second-hand) modes of goods acquisition such as acquiringgoods from kin, friends and neighbors as well as per-sonal adverts (e.g., in shop windows or localnewspapers). On the other hand, there are second-hand modes of goods acquisition such as car bootsales (a market composed of individuals sellingunwanted household items out of the trunk/boot oftheir car), second-hand shops (selling used goods) andmarket stalls selling second-hand goods as well asinstances where goods come with accommodation.

Participation in alternative consumptionpractices

Who uses informal and/or second-hand channels toacquire their goods? And why do they do so? Here,the apparently contradictory answers that have beengiven to these questions are reviewed. Conven-tionally, the common assumption was perhaps thatthese were channels principally used by disadvan-taged groups unable to buy new goods from formalretail outlets. As such, their existence was popularlyexplained in purely economic terms. Marginal popu-lations, confronted by economic constraints, were for-ced to turn to such sites in order to acquire goods thatthey would be otherwise unable to acquire.

This economic argument has been propounded byWilliams and Windebank (2000) in their study ofalternative consumption practices in a deprived urbanneighborhood in the English city of Southampton.They identify not only a heavy reliance on such chan-nels in this lower-income population but also thedominance of economic rationales in consumers’motives. Some 61% of the albeit limited sample of sixgoods that they surveyed were last acquired throughalternative consumption spaces (40% from second-hand shops and car boot sales and 21% through fri-ends and relatives), despite the fact that in 86% ofcases the consumer would have preferred to buy thegoods new from formal outlets. The suggestion, there-fore, is that alternative consumption practices arewidely used by lower-income populations and that

312

economic necessity is the primary motive for engage-ment in such practices.

However, running parallel to such economisticexplanations for participation in alternative consump-tion practices has been another set of literature thatputs forward apparently contradictory findings. Exam-ining specific alternative consumption practices, suchas the car boot sale (e.g., Stone et al., 1996) and char-ity shops (e.g., Horne, 1998; Mintel, 1997, 2000), ithas been identified that relatively affluent populationscomprise a substantial proportion of users. In-depthethnographic research of these alternative consump-tion practices, moreover, has revealed that economicnecessity is largely absent from consumers’ motiv-ations and that more culturally sensitive accounts arerequired (e.g., Crewe and Gregson, 1998, Gregsonand Crewe, 1994, 1997a 1997b, Gregson et al., 1997;Gregson et al., 2001).

Heavily influenced by the cultural turn/s in con-sumption studies that views retail sites such as thedepartment store, mall and superstore, not merely asmaterial sites for commodity exchange but also assymbolic and metaphoric spaces (e.g., Abelson, 1989;Benson, 1986; Buck-Morss, 1989; Campbell, 1987;Chaney, 1990; Crewe, 2000; Dowling, 1993; Fein-berg et al., 1989; Glennie and Thrift, 1992; Goss,1993; Gottdiener, 1986, 1997; Hopkins, 1990; Leach,1984; McCracken, 1998; Nava, 1996; Shields, 1989;Williamson, 1992; Willis, 1991; Wolff, 1985), thisliterature on alternative consumption practices hasunpacked how such sites are not just material spacesfor commodity exchange but also produce meaningsand construct identities for those who participate inthem. Their in-depth research reveals that alternativeconsumption practices are chosen spaces and aboutthe search for fun, sociality, distinction, display, pos-session, the spectacular and being seen to be buyingthe ‘ right’ things (e.g., Crewe and Gregson, 1998).Unlike economic accounts, therefore, a large dosageof agency is assigned to participants. The outcome isthat economic explanations have been countered withagency-orientated accounts that display how partici-pation is more a matter of choice.

The intention here, therefore, is to ask whether itis possible to reconcile these apparently mutuallyexclusive explanations for participation in alternativeconsumption practices. To do this, a first importantstep is to recognize that these readings arise out ofthe study of very different population groups. Whilethe study of deprived urban neighborhoods have pro-duced ‘economistic’ readings, direct analyses of parti-cipants in specific alternative consumption practicessuch as the car boot sale or charity shops have pro-duced more agency-orientated cultural accounts. AsTable 1 displays, even though lower-income groups(e.g., unskilled manual occupations, benefitclaimants) appear to most extensively use alternativeconsumption practices, the vast majority of userscome from groups that one would not define as mar-ginalized.


Table 1 Use of alternative consumption practices in last 12 months in the UK, 2000

% using Market stall Charity shop Car boot sale

All 40 28 22

Occupational group:Professional & management 31 26 13Clerical & technical 37 27 19Skilled manual 43 26 21Semi-skilled manual 46 28 21Unskilled manual 49 37 21

Specific groups:Benefit claimants 47 40 20Families on a tight budget 50 25 32Better-off families 26 28 20Better-off families without children 38 25 15Working managers 24 22 11Working women 44 31 24

Source: derived from Mintel (2000, Tables 37 and 38).

This might explain why studies of users of specificalternative consumption practices (i.e., affluentgroups) construe their participation in very differentways to studies of those who most widely use thesechannels (i.e., lower-income populations). Studies ofspecific alternative consumption practices may haveportrayed the motives of only the dominant usergroups and left other voices hidden from view. Stud-ies of modes of goods acquisition in lower-incomeurban neighborhoods, meanwhile, may have solelygiven voice to a specific group, albeit one that mostwidely uses such channels. The result is that appar-ently contradictory motives have been identified.When studying the majority of relatively affluentusers, these channels have been considered as chosenpractices engaged in as sources of fun, sociality, thespectacular and so forth. When lower-income groupshave been studied, meanwhile, economic necessityhas been identified as the principal rationale. Onerecent paper based on a study conducted during 1998of a limited range of just six goods in two Englishcities (Southampton and Sheffield) finds some evi-dence to support this thesis that the apparently contra-dictory findings arise from the different groups beingstudied (Williams, 2002). This identifies how themeanings of alternative consumption practices varyaccording to whether affluent or deprived urban con-sumers are being analyzed. Here, therefore, and todiscover whether this remains the case when a widerrange of goods are analyzed, an empirical investi-gation conducted in Leicester in 2002 is reported.

Examining alternative consumption spaces inLeicester

To test this thesis that the different findings arise dueto the different groups studied, in 2002, 120 face-to-face interviews were conducted in Leicester on thegoods acquisition practices of households and the

313

reasons why they use particular modes of goodsacquisition. To do this, maximum variation samplingwas used to select three wards of contrasting levelsof affluence. Using the Index of Multiple Deprivationproduced by the Department of Local Government,Transport and the Regions, that ranks all 8414 wardsin the UK in terms of their level of multiple depri-vation, the ward with the highest level of multipledeprivation in Leicester was selected (North Braun-stone which is ranked 57th out of 8414 wardsnationally) along with the least deprived (East Knigh-ton which is ranked 7683rd out of 8414 wards) andthe middle-ranked ward in Leicester (Thurncourtwhich is ranked 1048th out of 8414).

The location of these wards is displayed in Figure1 that also depicts the distribution of formal retail out-lets in the city of Leicester. This displays thatalthough there are some significant edge-of-towndevelopments (e.g., in Beaumont Leys), the inner citycore retains a strong retail function.

None of the study areas meanwhile, contain sig-nificant retail development: they are directly servedonly by grocery stores. As a result, on a crude ‘ iso-tropic’ level, it could be argued that the consumersof each of three selected areas are equally as spatiallyexcluded from retailing as each other.

However, their abilities to transcend space and gainaccess to the city’s core display marked variations.According to the 1991 Census of Population, 66.2%of households in the most deprived ward of NorthBraunstone have no car compared with 44.0% in theintermediate ward of Thurncourt and 22.4% in theleast deprived ward of East Knighton. Contrary towhat might be assumed, moreover, the public trans-port infrastructure exacerbates, rather than mitigates,the problem of accessibility to the city center for thesedeprived populations. The affluent ward has the mostbus links to the city center (with 11 separate busservices) and the deprived ward has the least with just


Figure 1 Formal retail spaces in the City of Leicester

seven links (with nine from the intermediate area). Inconsequence, accessibility to the retail core of Leices-ter is strongly differentiated socio-spatially.

When the geographical distribution of second-handshops in Leicester is analyzed, a similar finding isidentified. Although deprived populations most exten-sively use second-hand retail sites, Figure 2 revealsthat charity shops, second-hand shops and marketstalls are not located within close proximity to suchpopulations. Instead, such second-hand retail sitestend to be located either in the city center or inlocalities adjacent to relatively affluent areas wherethe majority of users of these alternative consumptionspaces are to be found. Although west of the deprivedward of North Braunstone is a significant linear clus-ter of alternative retail sites, these are exclusivelysecond-hand furniture shops, thus providing accessonly to one particular type of good. Conversely, themost affluent ward of East Knighton has ten sites pro-viding a variety of goods (furniture, books, clothingand general house clearance) in close proximity, aswell as five other sites less than 1 km away in thevillage of Oadby. Figure 2 thus displays a clusteringof alternative retail sites in locations in proximity tohigher-income populations and how those few alter-native retail channels near deprived populations offeronly a very limited range of goods despite the exten-

314

sive use of such channels by these populations acrossa wide range of goods.

Superficially, therefore, the location of second-hand retailing in Leicester appears to support the the-sis of cultural analysts about who participates in themand why. To test this thesis, therefore, in each of thethree contrasting wards, 40 face-to-face interviewswere conducted, which represents some 1% of allhouseholds in each neighborhood. To do this, a spati-ally stratified sampling method was employed(Kitchen and Tate, 2000: p 56). The researcher calledat every nth dwelling in each street, depending on thesize of the neighborhood and the number of inter-views sought. If there was no response, then theresearcher called back once. If there was still noresponse and/or they were refused an interview, thenthe nth + 1 house was surveyed (again with one callback), then the nth � 1 dwelling, nth + 2 and so on.This provided a representative sample of the neighb-orhood in terms of tenure and type of housing andprevented any skewness in the sample towards certaintenures, types of dwelling and different parts of theneighborhood being interviewed.

To investigate the extent and meanings of partici-pation in alternative consumption practices, a struc-tured questionnaire was used that investigated howhouseholds had last acquired 17 goods and why they


Figure 2 Location of second-hand retail channels in Leicester: by income level. Source: Leicester City Council (2001)

had acquired them in that manner.1 For each item,households were first asked if they had ever acquiredthe item. If so, how the good had been obtained thelast time that they had procured it was explored byexamining from whom/where it had been obtained,whether they had paid for it and how much they hadpaid. They were then asked in an open-ended mannerwhy the good had been obtained in that particularmanner. Finally, they were asked from where theywould ideally like to have acquired it and why thishad not been possible. No problems of memory recallwere identified during interviews. Respondentsappeared to know where they had last acquired eachof the goods investigated.

The responses on how goods were acquired werethen categorized into twelve modes of goods acqui-sition according to the answers given. These modescan be perceived as lying on a continuum runningfrom wholly informal at one end of the spectrum towholly formal at the other extreme. Commencingwith the informal end of the continuum and proceed-ing to the more formal end, goods were found to be

1These 17 goods covered eight household goods (bed, floor cover-ing, household cleaning materials, washing machine, tumble dryer,oven, refrigerator, microwave oven), six electrical goods(television, video recorder, hi-fi equipment, DVD player, computer,mobile phone) and three items of clothing (waterproof coat, shoesand an outfit for job interviews).

315

acquired from: relatives; friends and/or neighbors;personal adverts (e.g., in newspapers, shop windows);market stalls and/or car boot sales; second-handshops; accommodation (e.g., came with rentedaccommodation or a new house); social services; hirepurchase/rental agreements with firms; mailorder/internet companies; and formal wholesale orretail outlets. In this paper, to repeat, alternative con-sumption practices refer to all modes of goodsacquisition that do not involve acquiring new goodsfrom formal retail and wholesale outlets, mailorder/internet companies, hire purchase/rental agree-ments with formal businesses and social services.

Participation in alternative consumptionpractices in Leicester

To report the results, firstly, the extent and uneven-ness of engagement in alternative consumption prac-tices is outlined followed by the meanings attachedto participation in such practices.

Extent of participation in alternative consumptionpracticesPrevious studies of alternative consumption practicesdisplay that these are by no means ‘marginal’ orsmall-scale spheres. The studies of engagement inspecific alternative consumption practices such as the


car boot sale and the charity shop (e.g., Horne, 1998;Mintel, 1997, 2000; Stone et al., 1996) reveal thatthey are extensively used, while surveys of howhouseholds acquire goods show that between 20–40%of the limited range of six goods analyzed areobtained in this manner, depending on the type ofurban neighborhood examined (Williams, 2002; Wil-liams and Windebank, 2000).

This finding that alternative consumption practicesare by no means marginal or small-scale is confirmedby this study of Leicester. Analyzing how the 17 dif-ferent goods were acquired by these 120 households(covering 2040 possible acquisitions), Table 2 showsthat alternative consumption practices were last usedto acquire 10.2% and 11.0% of these 17 goods in theaffluent neighborhood of East Knighton and the inter-mediate area of Thurncourt respectively, but 22.2%in the deprived ward of North Braunstone. In conse-quence, although relatively affluent consumers mightconstitute the majority of users of alternative con-sumption spaces (e.g., Mintel, 2000), this data revealsthat it is the populations of deprived neighborhoodswho most extensively use informal and/or second-hand channels in their goods acquisition practices, atleast in Leicester. Not only were alternative consump-tion spaces used to acquire double the proportion ofgoods by the sampled population in the deprived wardcompared with the population of the relatively moreaffluent neighborhoods but the population of thedeprived ward, despite being only 33% of the sample,were responsible for 72% of all of the acquisitionsmade through alternative consumption sites that wereidentified in this survey.

Such data thus reinforces the idea that even if thepopulations of more affluent wards constitute themajority of visitors to alternative consumption spaces,it is the populations of the most deprived wards thatare the most intensive users of such practices.

The meanings of alternative consumption practicesWhy do people use alternative consumption prac-tices? Is it a matter of choice? Or is it the case that

Table 2 Modes of goods acquisition in Leicester: by ward

Mode of acquisition last used (%) Affluent ward—East Knighton Middle-ranking ward— Deprived ward—NorthThurncourt Braunstone

Formal retail outlet 87.5 86.4 71.9Wholesale outlet 0.6 0.8 0Internet 0.7 0 0Mail Order 1.0 1.8 3.9Rental/Hire purchase from firm 0 0 2.02nd Hand/Charity Shop 1.3 1.3 5.1Market Car boot sale 0.2 0.2 1.7Personal Adverts 0.6 0 0.3Friends/Neighbors 3.1 2.4 5.9Kin 5.2 7.0 9.1Already in house 1.7 1.0 0Total 100 100 100

316

there is sometimes the need to bring more economicmotivations to the fore?

Asking respondents how in an ideal world, theywould like to have acquired these 17 goods, in 93%of cases, it was stated that they would wish to buythem new from formal consumption sites (e.g., retailstores, the internet, mail-order catalogues). In just 7%of cases, therefore, did respondents state that theywould prefer to use alternative consumption practices.It thus appears to be the case that given the choice, thevast majority of consumers would wish to use formalconsumption practices to obtain their goods. Only ina small minority of cases did consumers express apreference for participating in alternative consump-tion practices, portraying the existence of a small butsignificant minority of people who either wished toopt out of mainstream consumption (mostly found inaffluent neighborhoods) or who had so limited hor-izons of what was feasible that they asserted that itwas preferable to buy from informal and/or second-hand channels in order to save money (mostly foundin the most deprived ward).2

The key issue that needs to be investigated, there-fore, is whether those who acquire their goods fromsuch alternative consumption channels are alwaysthose who would prefer to engage in such practices.If so, then the majority of participation in alternativeconsumption practices can be seen as conducted outof ‘choice’ . If, however, the majority of goods thatwere obtained from alternative consumption siteswere by those who would prefer to participate inmainstream consumption, then such practices can berevealed as conducted out of economic necessity.

To investigate this, the data can be analyzed toidentify in what proportion of instances where goodswere obtained from alternative consumption sites thiswas a choice and in which proportion of instances it

2Although a hypothetical question, it is important to note thatrespondents had no problems in answering it. Respondents dis-played a heightened and keen awareness of from where they wouldwish to ideally obtain goods.


was a necessity. Examining the reasons participantsgave for acquiring goods from alternative consump-tion spaces, the finding is that in the deprived wardof North Braunstone, just 6% of the goods wereacquired in this manner as a result of choice comparedwith 29% of such acquisitions in Thurncourt and 71%in the affluent ward of East Knighton.

In the affluent neighborhood of East Knighton,therefore, the use of alternative consumption spaceswas largely a matter of choice. Indeed, examining theindividual reasons given for participating in alterna-tive consumption practices, there is little doubt thatthe motives given for participation in alternative con-sumption practices by cultural analysts apply. Whenthese affluent urban populations used such practicesto acquire goods, they did so for the reasons outlinedin the cited work above on car boot sales. For many ofthese affluent urban households, participation in thesealternative consumption practices was “good fun try-ing to find something different to what everybody elsehas” , “a chance to get something with ‘ that wow fac-tor’” , “a leisure activity” , “good fun” , “a chance tohaggle” and “a way of getting things so that yourhome makes a statement about who you are” . In theaffluent ward, quote after quote reinforced all of theideas being put forward by cultural analysts that alter-native consumption practices are a chosen space andabout fun, discernment, sociality, distinction, display,possession, the spectacular, seeking out bargains andbeing seen to be buying the ‘ right’ things. That thisdata from affluent areas consolidates previous find-ings on the meanings of car boot sales and charityshops is not surprising. After all, to repeat, suchaffluent population groups are the main users of thesealternative practices (Mintel, 1997, 2000; Stone et al.,1996) so it is to be expected that these dominantvoices come through loudest in these reports.

Indeed, examining all acquisitions made throughsuch channels in this survey, the finding here is thatsome 71% of such acquisitions were motivated bychoice and just 29% by economic constraint. Seen inthis light, the emphasis of cultural analysts on agency-orientated motivations is reflecting the reason for thevast majority of alternative consumption practices andthe argument that economic necessity as the motiveapplies to less than a third of such transactions.

Nevertheless, to fail to allow these other voices tobe heard is an injustice. If they are hidden, then asthis study reveals, the voice of the majority of thepopulation in deprived wards who use alternative con-sumption practices will be concealed. For consumersin the most deprived ward, that is, the use of alterna-tive consumption practices is in 94% of cases mot-ivated by economic necessity. It is their first optionbut second choice. They would like to acquire goodsnew from the formal retail sphere but cannot do sodue to economic constraints. For them, the use ofalternative consumption practices is therefore largelya product of constraint, not choice.

Indeed, for these ‘excluded consumers’ , alternative

317

consumption practices convey meanings and consti-tute identities but not in the ways so far portrayed bythe cultural analysts. They view their participation insuch practices as a sign of their inability to be likeeverybody else and as a symbol of their exclusionfrom the mainstream. As such, the excluded consumeris comprised not only of those who cannot obtaingoods but also of those reliant on these sites to obtainthem when it is perceived that the majority are not.

Indeed, they have good reason for viewing theirreliance on such practices to obtain goods as signalingtheir exclusion. For many reliant on acquiring goodsthrough alternative consumption practices, the qualityof the goods that they received was below what wouldbe normally expected. This was particularly the casewith electrical and household goods studied. In some35% of cases where an electrical or household goodhad been acquired informally or second-hand, therespondent stated that there had been problems withits quality. Typifying this was a middle-aged man liv-ing in the middle-ranking ward of Thurncourt whoasserted “ I got a Hi-fi that started smoking after aweek, people wouldn’ t get rid of it if it wasn’ t crap” .

This lack of contentment with reliance on alterna-tive consumption practices was particularly prevalentin the deprived ward of north Braunstone. Some 45%for example, stated that their had been problems withthe refrigerator that they had purchased through suchchannels. As one man in a jobless household in thedeprived ward put it,

Nobody buys a fridge out of the ‘ for sale’ columns[newspaper adverts placed by individuals] by choice.You know it will be crap. But we had no choice. Doyou know how much they charge in shops and thenthere’s the warranty. We couldn’ t afford that.

It was similarly the case with washing machines.Again, 30% of households in the deprived ward hadused alternative consumption practices (compared to9% in East Knighton) with 18% of all households lastacquiring this good from either second-hand/charityshops or market/car boot sales. Similar problems wereconfronted. A half of those relying on such channelswere dissatisfied with the quality of the washingmachine. Typical was the response of a single parentliving in the deprived ward,

I got it home and what a palather [drama] that was—had to pay someone £10. We plugged it in and con-nected the taps and it worked for about 10 minutesand then started smelling burny. Then within a fewseconds the engine conked out. What a waste ofmoney but I had no choice. I can’ t get credit livinghere and can’ t afford new.

In consequence, although alternative consumptionpractices play an important function in terms of pro-viding access to goods for deprived populations andbolstering ownership levels of goods, there is wide-


spread dissatisfaction with the quality of goodsreceived, especially through second-hand and charityshops, markets and car boot sales and personal advertsin newspapers or shop windows. For these consumers,moreover, few view themselves as ‘ included’ in main-stream consumption. For them, their reliance on infor-mal and second-hand channels when the majority isnot is seen to mark them out as excluded. It is thusnot just whether one is able to own a good that isseen as signifying whether or not one feels sociallyexcluded from consumer society but also whether onedepends on informal and second-hand channels whenthe majority does not. For these participants, partici-pation in alternative consumption practices was dueto their lack of choice, not a matter of choice.

ConclusionsIn sum, this study of an affluent, middle-ranking anddeprived ward in Leicester reveals that most parti-cipants in alternative consumption practices in theaffluent neighborhood do indeed engage in alternativeconsumption practices out of choice for reasons to dowith fun, sociality, distinction and being seen to buythe right things. However, the vast majority of parti-cipants in the deprived neighborhood find themselvesforced through economic constraints into these goodsacquisition practices. For them, to repeat, partici-pation is due to a lack of choice; it is not a matter ofchoice. For this group, in consequence, engagementin alternative consumption practices does indeed leadto the production of meanings and constitution ofidentities but not in the ways previously discussed inthe cultural literature. Reliance on alternative con-sumption practices when the majority is not is seento signify their exclusion from the mainstream and asign of their inability to be like everybody else.

What, therefore, are the implications of these find-ings for understanding alternative economic prac-tices? Cultural theorists argue that the earlier literature“privileged economically driven explanations of retailchange at the expense of more culturally sensitiveaccounts” (Crewe, 2000: p 276). This paper showshowever, that even if this was previously the case,this is no reason for the pendulum to now shift to thesuppression of the economic. As Sayer (1997: p 16)puts it, ‘economic forces continue to dominate con-temporary life, and thus, however unfashionable,economic analysis cannot be sidelined’ . Meanings, asdisplayed, are intimately linked to economic pro-cesses.

This should not be interpreted, however, as a callfor a return to viewing alternative consumption prac-tices as solely used out of economic necessity. Rather,it is an argument for transcending the dualisticapproach that posits either necessity or choice as thereason. Such binary thinking needs to be replaced bya both/and approach that is sensitive to the varyingmeanings of such practices across the urban land-scape. Only then will it be possible to more fully

318

understand the contemporary plurality of meanings ofalternative consumption practices and how necessityand choice need to be given varying weighting in dif-ferent places when explaining participation in suchpractices.

What is certain, however, is that studies of alterna-tive consumption spaces can no longer allow thevoices of deprived populations to be hidden fromview, as has been the case in previous studies by cul-tural theorists. Although these deprived participantsconstitute a minority of visitors to alternative con-sumption spaces, they most extensively use such sitesdue to the lack of other options open to them. Evenhere however, access is becoming increasingly diffi-cult for such deprived populations. Besides theirinability to use formal outlets both financially and interms of poor private and public transport accessi-bility, it appears that alternative consumption spacesare now also increasingly difficult to access. As dis-played here in Leicester, second-hand retail sites havere-located near affluent populations so as to appeal tothis market segment. The result is that for the poorestsections of society, one of the few remaining retailformats open to them is becoming more inaccessible.To thus discuss how affluent consumers use suchspaces for fun, sociality, display and so forth whendeprived consumers find themselves confronted byexclusion from one of their last remaining sources ofgoods seems nothing short of moral ineptitude. It is‘academic’ in the most derogatory sense of the word.

ReferencesAbelson, E (1989) When Ladies go Thieving: Middle Class Shop-

lifters in the Victorian Department Store. Oxford UniversityPress, Oxford.

Benson, S (1986) Counter Cultures: Saleswoman, Managers andCustomers in American Department Stores. University of Illi-nois Press, Urbana, IL.

Buck-Morss, S (1989) The Dialectics of Seeing: Walter Benjaminand the Arcades Project. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Campbell, C (1987) The romantic ethic and the spirit of modernconsumerism. Blackwell, Oxford.

Chaney, D (1990) Sub-utopia in Gateshead: the Metro centre ascultural form. Theory, Culture and Society 7, 49–68.

Crewe, L (2000) Geographies of retailing and consumption. Pro-gress in Human Geography 24, 275–290.

Crewe, L and Gregson, N (1998) Tales of the unexpected: explor-ing car boot sales as marginal spaces of consumption. Trans-actions of the Institute of British Geographers 23, 39–53.

Dowling, A (1993) Femininity, place and commodities: a retail casestudy. Antipode 25, 295–319.

Feinberg, R, Scheffler, B, Meoli, J and Rummel, A (1989) There’ssomething social happening at the mall. Journal of BusinessPsychology 4, 49–63.

Glennie, P and Thrift, N (1992) Modernity, urbanism and modernconsumption. Environment and Planning D 10, 423–443.

Goss, J (1993) The magic of the mall: an analysis of form, functionand meaning in the contemporary retail built environment.Annals of the Association of American Geographers 83, 18–47.

Gottdiener, M (1986) Recapturing the centre: a semiotic analysisof shopping malls. In The City and the Sign, (eds) M Gottdienerand A Lagopoulos. Columbia University Press, New York.

Gottdiener, M (1997) The Theming of America: Dreams, Visionsand Commercial Spaces. Westview, Boulder, CO.

Gregson, N and Crewe, L (1994) Beyond the high street and the


mall: car boot fairs and the new geographies of consumption.Area 26, 261–267.

Gregson, N and Crewe, L (1997) The bargain, the knowledge andthe spectacle: making sense of consumption in the space of thecar boot sale. Environment and Planning D 15, 87–112.

Gregson, N and Crewe, L (1997) Performance and possession:rethinking the act of purchase in the light of the car boot sale.Journal of Material Culture 2, 241–263.

Gregson, N, Crewe, L and Brooks, K (2002) Second hand worlds.Routledge, London.

Gregson, N, Crewe, L and Longstaff, B (1997) Excluded spaces ofregulation: car boot sales as an enterprise culture out of control?Environment and Planning A 29, 1717–1737.

Hopkins, J (1990) West Edmonton mall: landscapes of myths andelsewhereness. Canadian Geographer 34, 2–17.

Horne, S (1998) Charity shops in the UK. International Journal ofRetail and Distribution Management 26, 155–161.

Kitchen, R and Tate, N (2000) Conducting Research in HumanGeography: Theory, Practice and Methodology. PrenticeHall, London.

Leach, W (1984) Transformations in the culture of consumption:women and department stores. Journal of American History 71,319–342.

Leicester City Council (2001) City of Leicester Local Plan, 1996-2011. Leicester City Council, Leicester.

McCracken, G (1998) Culture and Consumption. Indiana Univer-sity Press, Bloomington, IN.

MINTEL (1997) Charity shop retailing. London: Mintel.

319

MINTEL (2000) Survival of the High Street. London: Mintel.Nava, M (1996) Modernity’s disavowal: women the city and the

department store. In Modern Times: Reflections on a Centuryof English Modernity, (eds) M Nava and A O’Shea, pp 38–76.Routledge, London.

Sayer, A (1997) The dialectic of culture and economy. In Geo-graphies of Economies, (eds) R Lee and J Wills. Arnold, Lon-don.

Shields, R (1989) Social spatialization and the built environment:the West Edmonton mall. Environment and Planning D 7,147–164.

Stone, J, Horne, S and Hibbert, S A (1996) Car boot sales: a studyof shopping motives in an alternative retail format. Inter-national Journal of Retail and Distribution Management 24,4–15.

Williams, C C (2002) Why do people use alternative retail spaces?:Some case study evidence from English urban areas. UrbanStudies 39, 1897–1910.

Williams, C C and Windebank, J (2000) Modes of goods acqui-sition in deprived neighbourhoods. The International Review ofRetail, Distribution and Consumer Research 10, 73–94.

Williamson, J (1992) I-less and gaga in the West Edmonton mall.In The anatomy of gender, (eds) D Currie and V Raoul. Car-leton University Press, Ottawa.

Willis, P (1991) Common Culture. Open University Press, Mil-ton Keynes.

Wolff, J (1985) The invisible flaneuse: women in the literature ofmodernity. Theory, Culture and Society 2, 37–46.

the meaning of alternative consumption practices

Documents