The consumption of useless products
The motivation of consumer behavior in the consumption of bottled water
Bachelor thesis Anthropology
Student: Chiel de Block (10469222) Bachelor: Future Planet Studies
Supervisor: Word Count: 11.330
Introduction
It is the grand opening of a new product line called ‘Dupé’. Someone enters the shop and looks around. All he sees are glass jars, decorated with beautiful labels, on top of modern wooden tables and side tables. It really shows something authentic. Customers wander around and some even look a bit confused. At first sight, the jars may seem empty, but ‘Dupé’ mostly sells organic fresh air, which is its signature product. A lot of care has been put into containing the air and labeling the products, according to the shop-assistant. When a customer hears the price of a jar that is the size of about a jam jar, she is a bit shocked, it is $150. Would she pay that much money for some fresh air? Definitely not, she decides. The skeptical costumers find it ridiculous. Why would you buy air? One customer even points out that he could just go outside and breathe the fresh air. The shop-assistant could only agree with that. “It’s kinda like buying bottled water” he says. And the costumer could only agree with that… It doesn’t make sense to buy bottled water.1
Over the last years I wondered the same thing, why is it that people buy bottled water? In my mind it does not make sense. Why would people buy this, while there is no added value to it? Or do they know something I do not? All my life I have been drinking water from the tap. In a lot of other countries water from the tap is perfectly drinkable and of good quality. Not to mention the fact that, in the Netherlands for example, it is available everywhere. Still, in the Netherlands twenty percent of the Dutch population buys their water bottled (Spitz et al. 2014).
When we look around us, one might notice the ubiquitousness of drinking water. Everywhere around us, people are constantly sipping. Water, and particularly its bottle, has become a new personal accessory. Plastic bottles, and the water they contain, have insinuated themselves into our everyday life. We are living in a new water reality. Buying bottled water is part of that reality.
In a time when people get more and more conscious about the world we live in, it is mesmerizing to see that this behavior that is unsustainable on the one hand and on the other hand is also ‘obviously’ superfluous still exists. In the whole supply chain of the product bottled water, unsustainable fossil fuel is used (e.g. in the transportation and production of the bottles) while the plastic of the bottles is made of precious oil and partly ends up in nature, as can be seen with the plastic soup drifting in the pacific ocean (Hawkins 2011). The environmental impact of bottled water is more than 90 times higher than that of tap water. Besides that, compared to tap water, the production of bottled water uses 1000 times more energy (Marcussen et al. 2013).
1 Yara Valley’s campaign ‘It doesn’t make sense to buy bottled water’. https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=q3oAv0BjtN4
The production, packaging and transport of bottled water cause the water to pollute 500 times more CO2 than for the same amount of tap water. Not to mention the extra water that is
needed in order to produce that one bottle of water. Bottled water is up to two till seven times more water intensive to produce than tap water (Spitz et al. 2014). Besides the environmental impact of this product, bottled water is also up to 2000 times more expensive than tap water (Clarke 2007). The bottled water industry seems to be exploiting natural resources as well as consumers. To this list, a lot of negative aspects could be added.
Combining the fact that there are countries where qualitatively good tap water is available everywhere, that bottled water is bad for the environment and that it is more expensive, leaves me puzzled. Because there are millions of people, all around the world, that keep on consuming this product. Therefore, the question I would like to address in this thesis is as follows: What motivates consumer behavior in the consumption of irrational and irrelevant products, like bottled water?
In scientific literature, little is written on consumer’s motivation to buy bottled water and the fact that this is such a growing phenomenon. Obviously the market is expanding and the bottled water brands get a lot of competition, but there is a drive for the consumer to keep on buying more water. There is little, to nothing, written about this crucial aspect of the thriving of consumption of bottled water; the sheer motivation behind consuming this type of water above the alternative of tap water. What is written are explanations given on which needs are satisfied, from a consumer and individual perspective. So the answer why people do buy it has to be searched for in the area of the motivation for people to consume in the first place. Furthermore, it is been taken for granted that a large share of people buy bottled water eventually, but there is so little understanding of why people feel motivated to consume this. What I am arguing is that this bottled water discussion in the scientific literature needs an anthropological approach on the reason why people consume and why they consume bottled water. The subject is relevant for anthropology because it is a phenomenon that is interwoven and rooted in our own culture, therefore emic and etic are so tangled up that we are not able to see clearly the absurdity of this phenomenon. These puzzlements about our own cultural practices are sometimes easily overlooked. That is why it is necessary to remove emic from etic in this thesis and for once give an anthropological account on what it is people gain when consuming bottled water.
I could argue, from a rational, taste-oriented, economic and environmental point of view that bottled water is a futile product and that it is an irrational behavior to consume it. However, it is a fact that the market of bottled water is vastly increasing (Wilk 2006). Therefore I could state that there is more to understand about this phenomenon, since rationality is inadequate to explain why people consume bottled water. When more is known about what compels people in this environmentally polluting behavior, this behavior might be understood better. This is important, because changing this
behavior can only be thoroughly done when the root of the problem is addressed and understood. Since, when we change this behavior, we pursue a more sustainable society where people care about the environment and future generations.
For this thesis, literate study is done. To my surprise, a lot of scientific information is written on bottled water. Once submerged in the world of bottled water, more and more articles were brought to the surface. Dozens of articles were read. This is why I had to narrow my topic down; bottled water consumption in total was in fact a lot to cover. However, when searching in anthropological sources for bottled water, I swiftly noticed that little attention was given to the underlying reason on why it is that bottled water consumption today is still ongoing. In fact, no anthropological account of bottled water (consumption) was given at all. Therefore I used consumption theories and literature to gain a deeper understanding of the motivation on consumption as a whole. This gave me a better comprehension of how to see the consumption of futile products. I read several books on bottled water, which are written plentiful in the last couple of years, and got a lot of background information on where bottled water came from. The stories were all pretty similar. Together with the history of bottled water consumption, it gave me a way to apply consumption theories to the motivation of bottled water consumption. I used a specific, though in my view relevant, way of looking better at bottled water consumption, because I noticed that no author I have read so far, dared to link bottled water consumption to explanations on consumption in the Western society.
This thesis is structured as follows. The first section is a brief overview of the anthropological theories of consumerism, relevant for this thesis and for making my argument on the motivation for consuming bottled water. In order to understand the consumption of futile products, we need to take a closer look at a selection of ideas brought forward about consumption in the last decennia. Using broad theories will help explain ‘the particular’, which in this case is bottled water consumption in contemporary society. This overview is followed by background information on both tap water and the invention of bottled water. It shows that the consumption of bottled water is a culturally rooted phenomenon and already is a first indication of the argument that there is cultural logic associated with bottled water consumption. The section will argue that bottled water and the irrelevant consumption of it did not appear out of thin air. This is followed by a short section on the framing of bottled water done by the bottled water companies. The sections will be interwoven with theories of consumerism discussed earlier. In the end a conclusion is given of my thesis and the insights I tried to deliver.
Consumption Motivation Theories
Commodity Fetishism and Alienation
In his famous work ‘Das Kapital’ (1976), Marx talks about commodity fetishism. I will briefly summarize his vision on this phenomenon, which I will freely use for my further argument. Marx says the following about commodities: “A commodity appears at first sight an extremely obvious, trivial thing. But its analysis brings out that it is a very strange thing, abounding in metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties” (Marx 1976: 163). This commodity is self-evident when it is tied to its use-value. Marx gives an example of a table, which was a piece of wood that is turned into a table: the use-value is clear.
However, when something becomes a commodity, it “transcends sensuousness” (Marx 1976: 163). This can be explained by rationalizing that every commodity is an externalization of human labor. By framing this externalization of human labor as a commodity, it is connected to exchange and moreover to money. The commodity becomes an object with a fixed price. The consequence is that people start to treat the commodity as if the value is inhered in the object itself. "The mysterious character of the commodity-form consists therefore simply in the fact that the commodity reflects the social characteristics of men's own labor as objective characteristics of the products of labor themselves, as the socio-natural properties of these things" (Marx 1976: 164-65). The commodity is now in relation to other commodities, instead of in relation to other social-relations. Commodification makes it possible for highly different objects to be compared and exchanged with anything else, even hours of labor, as they now have a commodity value.
To make his point even more clear, take the use-value of bottled water: it is needed to hydrate oneself, which is essential to survive as a human being. Water is also a human right and a basic necessity for life. I will argue that the use-value of bottled water is the same as the use-value of (a glass of) tap water, since, in essence, they both serve the purpose of hydrating. For use value, you exchange is not needed to recognize the value of an object or service. Now take the commodity value of bottled water. Commodity value can only be realized in exchange and what happens with bottled water then is that the commodity value increases tremendously compared to tap water. This is why Marx argues that we need a market to recognize the commodity value. In our capitalist society, we assume bottled water to have a greater value than tap water, because we think the value is reflected in the price we have to pay for the water. People who believe that bottled water has a greater value than tap water, talk about the commodity value.
The consequence of this commodity fetishism is that the product has also been alienated from its origin (Marx 1976). For consumers, the background of their commodity becomes trivial. By
commodifying the good, it becomes mystified and alienated, erased from any trace of the reality of its production. The commodity has the value and worth within itself. As in the case of water, I would like to apply this as follows: water has been turned into a commodity and is now sold in bottles almost everywhere. This commodification made the consumer look at this water as a commodity, as something to consume. What they might forget when they do this, is that the water that is inside the commodity, does not differ from the water that flows from the tap: they are both perfectly drinkable. This, of course, is reasoned from a use-value point of view. However, in this blind spot of consumerism, the water has been perfectly made into a product and the consumers apply their commodity fetishism on this product. In this way we create value ‘out of thin air’. We do not know what water entails anymore. This commodity fetishism, including the desire to consume, leads to a state where the consumer could lose its rationality. Money conceals, instead of discloses, the rationality of bottled water.
Alienation
The other side of the same medal of commodity fetishism is on the production part. Besides the consumer side of this theory, is also the laborer who is not aware of what he produces anymore. Its labor becomes an externalization of himself, which he puts in the product (Marx 1976). We produce more than we need, the externalization becomes the end and not the means. People, therefore, do not consider the real value (how is it made, what were the conditions) of the product anymore when they are consuming, they merely assume that the value is revealed in the price. Marx (1976) therefore states, which is an important note to make, that the thing you buy when you buy a product, is the conservation of the societal attitudes, the current norm, and not the process which one might prefer above the other. We have a blind spot for the negative aspects and idealize the product in such a way that it fits in our paradigm. This is the social forgetting or collective amnesia which hides the negative aspects from awareness (Billig 1999). “We distance ourselves from (…) information, not connecting it with our commodity” (Billig 1999: 326). Thanks to Marx’s alienation of labor, and therefore alienation of the consumer goods, we are able to let others give meaning to a good we no longer know the origin and background from. This alienation created a niche to interpret commodities in more ways than just what is simply out there. This shows how people are alienated from water.
Appadurai (1986) develops Marx’s argument a bit further when he states that the distance between where the goods are produced and where it is consumed enables mystification. The essence of the argument is that the knowledge about the production and the knowledge about the consumption of the commodity diverge, especially when their social, spatial and temporal distance increases (Appadurai 1986). What this says is that this gap allows people to think differently about
their commodity, because it is produced so far away. The consumers cannot connect with the product, because they do not see and feel the source. This is another reason for alienation from the product.
This is wat Marx teaches us about how we, through commodification, are alienated from water. Marx’s idea gives insight into the knowledge of how it is possible for something superfluous to be commodified, because we are alienated from its background. This redundancy is eradicated by the power of the commodity fetishism and the desire for consumption. Marx, however, does not give insight in why people value the bottled water so much.
Appropriation through singularization
Appadurai and Kopytoff (1986) tried to expand the ideas proposed by Marx. They argue that goods are more than just commodities for exchange in contemporary capitalist economies. Appadurai (1986) uses Simmel’s definition of value of an object. Simmel states that value is never an inherent property of an object, but that it is a judgement made by people (Appadurai 1986). So value is reflected on objects by people and not necessarily by the market, as Marx would argue. Appadurai (1986) formulates that the value of a commodity exists only in the subjects’ mind, not in the commodities themselves.
Looking at commodities in this way creates the opportunity to broaden the understanding of the value of commodities. Kopytoff and Appadurai (1986) give an insight in the reason why commodities can be valuable to people. Not just labor constructs exchange value, as Marx would argue, but the singularization is very important to the commodity’s exchange value as well, according to Kopytoff (1986). This is missing in Marx’s argument on commodity fetishism.
“For Marx, the worth of commodities is determined by the social relations of their production; but the existence of the exchange system makes the production process remote and misperceived, and it ‘masks’ the commodity’s true worth. This allows the commodity to be socially endowed with a fetishlike ‘power’ that is unrelated to its true worth. Our analysis suggests, however, that some of that power is attributed to commodities after they are produced, and this by way of an autonomous cognitive and cultural process of singularization. ” (Kopytoff 1986: 83).
Kopytoff (1986) noticed that there are certain objects that are worth more or can never even be exchanged. Kopytoff’s (1986) explanation of a commodity is that it is a thing with value, exchangeable for something that is of an equivalent value in the same context. However, not every item in a social formation becomes a commodity. Depending on the context and the person, an item
can be seen as a commodity or as a non-commodity. Goods or things become commodities through the process of commodification. It is a process of becoming. This is why he argues that something like the cultural process of singularization exists, which I will briefly explain.
In the process of commodification, singularization may take place. As opposed to Marx, who argues that power attributed to a commodity is the result of commodification, Kopytoff (1986) argues that this power is the result of singularization. When singularizing a commodity, value is attached to the commodity. As a result, the commodity becomes increasingly valuable, special or even sacred to the consumer. Singularization may pull items out of an exchange sphere. In fact, goods or things that are commodities can even be singularized by pulling them out of their usual commodity sphere and attaching value to it.
Singularization occurs through restricted commodification as well. In restricted commodification, some things are confined to a very narrow sphere of exchange. For instance, there are things that can and may be traded but are kept in another sphere, for example the ‘public goods sphere’, which tries to limit the exchange. What this show is that in society, the individual is caught between his own attempts to order value or give value to things and the cultural structure of commodification (Kopytoff 1986). To clarify this argument, let us look at water once more. In a society where drinkable water comes from the tap, one has to make effort to singularize this tap water. People want tap water to be a good governed by the government and it is battled over to keep that out of the privatization sphere. People want it to be a (nearly) free good. Tap water therefore, can hardly be commodified in a way that bottled water can. Bottled water is already commodified and therefore is more able to be singularized as well.
Marx suggests that goods are commodified in a single sphere of exchange. Kopytoff (1986) competes this idea. Goods are exchanged in “several spheres of exchange values, which operate more or less independently of one another” (Kopytoff 1986: 70). Each sphere of exchange carries a different value system. Consequently, a commodity can circulate in many exchange spheres, but has a different value in each of these spheres (Kopytoff 1986). Bottled water in a restaurant has another value than the same bottled water in a water deprived country.
Two value systems can be at work, take the common system of the marketplace and the closed sphere of personally singularized things. The marketplace sphere is independent from the personal sphere of exchange (Kopytoff 1986). One has to associate the personal sphere with values from morality, professional concern or religion: for someone who tries to live a healthy life the water is worth more than just his dollar, it is a lifestyle which cannot be articulated in money. One is constantly confronted with seeming paradoxes of value when a thing is simultaneously participating in interlinked exchange spheres. The duality lies in the question how an object can both have a price and be priceless. This is what is constantly happening when something becomes commodified and
then singularized or vice versa. “Singularity, in brief, is confirmed not by the object’s structural position in an exchange system, but by intermittent forays into the commodity sphere, quickly followed by reentries into the closed sphere of singular art. But the two worlds cannot be kept separate for very long” (Kopytoff 1986: 83).
Commodification and singularization combine in paradoxical new arrangements in modern societies. As is the case with water, since water is a human right, but still it is commodified. On the one hand one would want water to be priceless: it is necessary for everyone to survive. On the other hand, it is already commodified and is now equipped with a price tag. This is an area where singularization and commodification cross.
Status and identity
Kopytoff’s singularization has provided an understanding of the fact that a commodity could have a personal attachment. One way this process of singularization is enacted, is reflected on in the explanation of why people are showing of status. Bottled water is an example of a product that is superfluous in daily life and therefore conspicuous consumption is suitable for explaining this social phenomenon of the consumption of it. Veblen coined the term conspicuous consumption in his book ‘The Theory of the Leisure Class’ in 1899. Conspicuous consumption is the act of consuming or buying more goods or services than are necessary to one’s life. It is meant to be done in such a way that people will notice the purchase, in order for the consumer to attain or maintain social status (Veblen 1970).
The term conspicuous consumption was coined to understand the consumption behavior of the nouveau riche. In the 20th century, the emergence of a middle class was due to the significant improvement of the standard of living. This allowed men and women with excessive wealth to practice patterns of consumption which were motivated by the desire for prestige. The practical utility of the goods and services were irrelevant (Veblen 1970). Obviously, the term is coined to understand the nouveau riche. However, this same pattern can be placed in a modern context. This frame of reference will be used to shed light on the bottled water consumption.
“Gradually, strictly therapeutic practices were commingled with social and leisure pursuits, in which drinking the water became a form of conspicuous health consumption for elites” as Hawkins et al. (2015) already noticed. Even from the beginning of Evian’s existence, which is the first bottled water to be commercially sold in France, the water was used to maintain social status. Nowadays, bottled water is, in places with safe and drinkable tap water, a luxury product in the sense that the water from the bottle could be replaced by cheaper water from the tap. The tap water is cheap, yet still people are willing to spend a relatively lot amount of money on water from bottles. In this way,
bottled water consumption may be used to show off certain status or income and therefore is a form of conspicuous consumption.
However, showing of status occurs in more ways than conspicuous consumption, and can even be done more subtle, as Baudrillard (2001) explains. He, as many others, elucidates the failure or shortcomings of economics. In the economic science, a man or consumer would be endowed with needs, therefore he is directed towards products or objects that give him satisfaction (Baudrillard 2001). As a sociologist he points out that the economist does not know much about the needs of men. In his article, he tries to figure out what these needs of men are.
In his book ‘The Consumer Society’ Baudrillard (2001) argues that around 1920 to 1960, in order for capitalism to keep growing, much more attention should be given to the managing of demand, in order to enlarge and steer consumption. So, the demand should be intensified. In this era, the development of capitalism came together with new production techniques, the development of new technologies and economic concentration. This accelerated mass production and therefore corporations focused on the management of consumption and moreover, the creating of need for new goods (Baudrillard 2001). Those goods were specifically created as prestigious, which gives cause for Baudrillard’s sign-value (Kellner 2005).
Baudrillard (2001) uses the term sign-value to define the expression of style and prestige (as well as power and luxury) with commodities and consumption. With the introduction of this term, he tries to show that objects or commodities are used in order to display a sort of prestige in the world, besides just ‘using’ the commodity. Baudrillard therefore claims that commodities are not only characterized by their use-value or exchange value (as Marx would argue), but even claims that commodities are bought as much for their use-value as for their sign-value (Kellner 2005). In consumer society, people consume a product therefore not only for its mere use, but sign-value has become a vital component of the commodity and therefore for consumption.
This notion of sign-value touches very close to Veblen’s conspicuous consumption. The difference is that conspicuous consumption mostly occurs to (publicly) display wealth, while sign-value is accorded in smaller and more subtle ways and shows the way in which all commodities not only carry a use-value but also an element which enables the consumer’s display of power, wealth, knowledge and taste. Sign-value is extended to every individual in society (Kellner 2005).
For Baudrillard, society is organized around consumption. “The system of needs is the product of the system of production. (…) [N]eeds are produced as a force of consumption”. (Baudrillard 2001: 45) Consuming and the displaying of commodities is the way in which individuals gain identity and even prestige (Kellner 2005). When consuming, people not necessarily need the object, but most importantly the value of the object. The needs for these values are produced by the packaging, the advertising, the fashion, the mass media, by display and by culture (McCracken 1988).
When talking about identity creation through consumption, Miller is key in understanding how this works. Miller (1988) studied working-class housing estate in England and noticed that the decorations used inside carried specific messages about the people living in the houses. Parts of the houses were identical to each other, such as the kitchen. However, the inhabitants expressed their individuality and shaped the rooms self-consciously (Miller 1988). The most inspiring aspect of this expression, is that they used standardized products from shops, but combined them in such a way that they expressed their individuality (Eriksen 2010). Commodities or objects could be universal, but with the right kind of combinations, one can show his or her own identity.
Miller, therefore, argues that objects are consciously selected by consumers to create self-identity and meaning (Miller 1994). As Miller sees it, culture is a process of consumption where people give meaning to the objects around them. Each individual appropriates the same kind of objects in a different way. Miller sees consumers as “conscious actors who appropriate the material culture of their environment to strengthen their own sense of personhood and identity.” (Eriksen 2010: 199) Following Miller’s argument, commodities are used to articulate the self-identity.
Ideals and hopes
Knowing that commodities are not only consumed for their use-value but also for their sign-value inherited in the object and the fact that this allows consumers to create their identity, leaves us with one gap to fill. How is it, that these object are able to show the world who you are? The reason that people use certain objects to create their identity has everything to do with the way that object realizes their ideal world.
McCracken (1988) writes about how the culturally constituted world creates meaning of consumer goods. McCracken believes that people communicate via things. Consumption can even embody what one feels. McCracken gives an understanding of how meaning is attached to goods, that go beyond utilitarian functions (McCracken 1988). People actively give power to materialism. It is a shield against the emptiness we might feel inside. Since, via consumption, one carries out a message of who one is or wants to be. Because goods are tangible, it makes it an excellent way to communicate with the outside world (McCracken 1988).
One of his arguments that I will use in my quest for motivation of consumer behavior, is the argument about displaced-meaning. In our contemporary world, people yearn for hope. People cope with a gap between the life they desire and the life they lead, thereby adopting a displaced-meaning strategy. By infusing commodities with symbolic meaning, the consumer preserves ideals and hopes, by which they battle reality, therefore displacing their meaning to a future life with that commodity full of potential hope (McCracken 1988). Commodities have the power, according to McCracken, to connect the owner with an idealized future. This can be seen when consumer behavior is to be found
irrational, but in the point of view of the consumer seems logical, because it functions as this bridge to ideals and hopes (McCracken 1988).
The link with bottled water is effortlessly made, when following McCracken’s argument, people buy bottled water because it creates some kind of hope for an ideal future. It is a phenomenon we experience around us every day in the media and advertisements. Regarding utopian worlds, the advertising and media are able of creating an ideal image we should follow. Advertisers suggest that their commodity provides benefits for the consumer, such as the idea that you are able to ‘live young’ when drinking Evian water. Or Spa Mineral Water’s pure life you will have when drinking its pure waters. Or Vittel’s vitality which will be provided by taking a sip (Mascha 2006). When something resonates with your vision of ideals and hopes, it start to be appealing. McCracken (1988) believes consumers as very willing in this practice of delusion. The goods create cultural ideals and hopes. However, what McCracken also argues, is that by striving for this ideal by buying these commodities, it prevents the consumer from achieving a sense of final satisfaction (McCracken 1988), because the ideal world could never be realized with that commodity.
Campbell also wonders about (1987) what motivate the modern consumerism. He agrees that people override physiological urges for prestige and status. Prestige and status are also ideals to strive for. And consuming for the sake of ‘needs’ is not the case, as yesterday’s luxuries are today’s necessities, according to Campbell (1987). Campbell deduces a same kind of conclusion as McCracken. Campbell (1987) argues that consumers are motivated by the imaginative pleasure-seeking that the product allows them. The desire for novelty and the fact of insatiability becomes an end and no longer the means. An illusion is created which consumers know to be false, but feel like truth (Campbell 1987). Campbell describes all of this as self-illusionary hedonism.
What is clear so far, is that an ideal is strived for. The delusion is not so much toward the object, but to the feeling that object creates. Once again, the use-value of the object is surpassed and is of no importance at all. The desire (for water) can still be present, but people now long for an insatiable satisfaction. The consumer is continuously exposed to experience wanting (Campbell 1987) and this is how marketers can exploit the consumer.
Historical development of water
The beginning
Kopytoff (1986) pleads for the examination of commodities via a ‘biography of things’. He believes that, in order to understand the values of commodities, one has to know the history and development of the commodity and how it is valued throughout time. According to Kopytoff, all objects move from one sphere to another, driven by cultural resistance trough singularization and the economy’s drive for commodification. “Biographies of things can make salient what might otherwise remain obscure” according to Kopytoff (1986: 67). The aim for this section is to understand the cultural logic of water.
Water has in history been associated with being the source of life, but it also has the connotation of washing away sins and impurities. This belief, of physical and ceremonial purification, came from Egyptian and Greek origins and believed to be transported into the Christian baptism. Many waters, however, also were known to be dangerous to health. Therefore, two kinds of water were recognized: life-giving and pure water and unclean and poisonous (Burnett 1999). Although it was not until 1855 that John Snow scientifically proved that “the power of water [could] serve as medium in the communication of infectious diseases” (Hamlin 2000: 314). Of course this idea was based on the centuries-old assumption that water could also be harmful (Hamlin 2000).
Where there is civilization, there is a need for a proper water supply and a form of sanitation, since diseases easily spread in a city where sewage and water supply are not properly separated (Holden 2014). Water wells were dug way back in time, one of the first wells could be dated back to 6500 BC2. One has to remember that the construction of sewages and drains has always been a
historical phenomenon, where the Roman Empire might be one of the most striking examples. The aqueducts of the Roman had the purpose to distribute fresh water across its empire. It is part of evolution to build a city near a river, or some other sort of place where water was plentiful (Holden 2014). Medieval towns had water supply coming from rivers as well as springs and wells, if possible. The water from wells were preferred, as they ‘tasted better’, some even gained holy status (Burnet 1999).
Although no scientific proof was given so far that the water from rivers became less suitable for drinking, people did notice a difference in taste and quality therefore were willing to fetch their water from far away. That is the main reason why people would consume beer to hydrate himself at that time, water diluted the alcohol percentage to about 1 percent, this was still enough to minimize the effect of the bacteria in the water (Mascha 2006). In the 13th till 16th century, lead pipes were
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/ancient-well-reveals-secrets-of-first-jezreel-valley-farmers-introduced and distribution services came to existence, such as the import of fresh water from mountains by boats (Burnett 1999). As populations kept growing, more water was needed for both domestic and industrial needs and wells were dug and water circulation systems installed (Burnett 1999). Due to the increase of water supply and the need for people to establish the supply systems in the 18th century, companies arose that managed the water distribution and exploitation. Water was
now largely owned by companies, which is an important transformation, because formerly water was regarded as a gift of nature (Burnett 1999). This is an important moment in the history of the commodification of water. “In the Age of Enlightenment water became a commodity to be provided, like any other, for those who could pay” (Burnett 1999: 8).
In contrast, in the 19th and especially the 20th century, the provision of access to safe drinking
water was considered a concern for the government, which they needed to solve with the development of an infrastructure for water. In a lot of European countries, the expansion of public clean water provisioning was due to an increasing attention on more healthy lifestyles (Hawkins 2009). “Water had become a public good, pumped, piped and purified to domestic taps by state instrumentalities” (Hawkins 2009: 184). In the Netherlands for example, fresh water could come from shallow dune water and shallow wells. Deep extraction from wells started offering a greater supply for the growing population. Eventually, in our contemporary society, river water is artificially infiltrated in the dunes, making the purification possible by natural ecosystems. In this way a continuous flow of filtered water is available for domestic use. This water was better distributed around 1950, since more and more people had indoor plumbing. In this way the filtered water was delivered to their houses3.
What this brief history shows obviously, is that tap water has not always been available to the society and their population. Before the construction of tap water services by (local) governments, people were depended on water supply that came from elsewhere. Most of the time, this was fresh water that came from mountains, both by river or by other sorts of transportation: this was a readily available fresh water source. Drinking fresh water from mountains and deep wells has therefore always been the norm for the rich. The fact that people drink mountain water has, by cultural history, always been in our system. However, in that time this supply of fresh water from those sources did not come in the form of packaged water. The invention of bottled water has been relatively new (Hawkins et al. 2015).
Health, status and hydration
Water from rivers and nearby sources, was never a general drink, not even in the medieval times. The rich cooked with water, and drank beer or wine, while the really poor were intended to drink this
3 Lecture Water Quality ‘Drinking Water in the Netherlands and Amsterdam’ by F. Smits, University of Amsterdam 10/2/2014
water, but only if nothing else could be afforded. Water was the drink of poverty (Burnett 1999). This remained a generality until far in the 16th century. However, there was one exception to this rule.
Mineral water was drunken by rich people, partly due to the benefits it had for one’s health. Some water were even believed to be magical, due to its special life ad spirit that resulted from their geological history (Hamlin 2000). Especially the water from the holy wells of the churches and the wholesome waters of Spa (known by the Catholic Church), the oldest known mineral water bottling establishment, were favorite under the wealthy (Brunett 1999). Notice here, that mineral water therefore has always been associated with status and prestige. The motivation to drink mineral for this status, as Veblen and Baudrillard have shown, comes from historical roots associated with the fact that drinking mineral water was only possible if you had the money to do so. Mineral water was therefore gradually endowed with sign-value of prestige, status and wealth.
The connotation with health and water is rooted in a long lasting history of European spas and resorts (Hawkins et al. 2015). Hamlin (2000) even points out that the fact that people drink healthy water nowadays, reflects physiological concepts of health originating from the 16th till 19th
century. So throughout history, special waters, like those from springs and wells that were recognized to be ‘good’ waters, were drunk by the rich people. It was not until the 18th century that the
commercial exploitation via containerization of this water began (Hawkins 2009). These practices also included bathing in as well as drinking of these healthy waters. The water from spa’s and ‘water hospitals’ mostly in France and Italy, became very popular around 1800. The wealthy who could afford it, treated themselves with a day at the spa, because the waters were believed to be beneficial to your health and curative.
The function of holy wells and mineral springs was wide-ranging: from curing eye diseases, enhancing fertility to improving health in general (Hamlin 2000). Especially in the case of mineral waters, uniqueness was important: “the fame of one’s spring was proportional to its powers in curing what could be cured nowhere else.” (Hamlin 2000: 320) In the rivalries between different spas and mineral waters, only those with the greatest status survived (Hamlin 2000). The mineral waters still remaining nowadays, are those with the best heritage and status in that time. This shows that the truth of health and prestige surrounding these waters are validated by its long lasting history.
The example of Evian could make this point fairly clear, hereby not claiming that every bottled water history follows this linear logic. In the Evian case, the special characteristic of the water were assumed to be intrinsic (Hawkins et al. 2015). It was ‘discovered’ by the sick Marquis de Lessert in 1789. After drinking the water he felt better and while the word spread it became more and more famous. The water was believed to have intrinsic therapeutic qualities. From this idea on, it became commodified. Spas and resorts were built around the source and people could come to the waters pf Evian in order to cure their ills and pains (Hawkins et al. 2015).
In this era, the water became more famous and therefore was containerized in porcelain demi-jars and earthenware, and subsequently sold (Hawkins 2009). In 1829, Evian was the first to introduce bottled water as a commercial beverage in France (Marcussen et al. 2013). The reason for commodifying the product was not so much for the drinking aspect of the water, but mostly for the perceived health benefits. As we have seen before, this marks the start of the commodification of mineral water. Use-value and commodity value now drift apart even more and this gap will only expand as the years continue. However, the use-value of water, around that time, is not the same as it is now. Water in the contemporary world is mainly used for hydration, while at that time beer and wine fulfilled this task. The commodity value, on the other hand, did start to increase from that moment in time. Whereas the use-value has changed, the commodity value only increased.
The rice of glass as containing material in the late 19th century, replaced the porcelain and
earthenware. This was the reason that the mineral water now was able to be exchanged more widely. Still, it was sold as luxury drink for the wealthy (Mascha 2006). And even through most of the 20th
century, mineral water stayed a luxury item, mostly being served to accompany fine dining (Hawkins 2009).
Bottled water was not a mass product in France, until 1960. Till that time it was only sold in pharmacies, which once again emphasize the health driven origin surrounding the water. But then bottled water, and especially Evian, was pushed to the market as superior table water. The way in which it was pushed to the market was as a distinction strategy for the upper class. This was due to the superior taste, its Frenchness and because it was considered as prestige water (Hawkins et al. 2015).
Evian is not the only water that has a background of therapeutic potentials, different brands of water have a history alike (Mascha 2006). This idea about water became widespread and thoroughly believed in. Bottled water has come to connote health and purity. There is a long-standing U.S. and European interest in specialty water for the sake of health (Kaplan 2007). The idea that surrounded, and still surrounds, these water reservoirs was that the water had therapeutic benefits (Mascha 2006). Here we already see a form of singularization: the water is special because of its health benefits. Singularization makes it possible for water, a mundane good, to be special and therefore worthwhile consuming. But this is also a reason why the commodity value of bottled water is so great, it ‘contains health’. The water now covers beneficial health qualities that are exemplary for the way in which water can be personalized through singularization. Still today, the bottled water companies try very hard to emphasize the fact that it is so healthy (take Evian). The number of studies that show that mineral waters with a lot of minerals are healthy, are increasing. And even today the health tourism is an expanding market (Speier 2011).
The history of the introduction of drinkable water in the city is an important development when talking about bottled water. As we have seen, mineral water had always been a product for the rich people. This was until tap water came along. Drinking (clean) water became the norm more and more. Around that time, the tables were turned, since the population that drank bottled water replaced the bottle for tap water. This had a big impact on the bottled water industry in the early 20th
century, because their products were consumed less (Mascha 2006). This clearly shows that the use-value of the mineral waters is perceived differently in the 20th century than it was before. Because
mineral water in the 18th century had not so much a hydration role, but the use-value then was to
show status in that time. However, since tap water is the replacement for bottled water in the 20th
century, one can see that the use-value of bottled water was mainly for hydration.
Even though we now use water differently, namely as form of hydration, the idea that surrounded the mineral water did not change. Where drinking water has been substituted by wine and beer in its role of hydration, many people in the contemporary world (as we see, because of the increase of bottled water consumption) still hang on to the mineral waters because it shows a certain kind of status. Drinking water that is not bottled, as we have seen, namely associates with the beverage for the poor, from an historical perspective. Because bottled water has been commodified it became more and more available to everyone else, and in fact, the use-value is now not solely about status anymore, but also about hydration. The use-value of non-mineral water has remained the same, and that of mineral water became the same as tap water. By commodifying the water back then, the idea that it is about prestige and status has been captured. Commodifying the waters, as Marx have shown, let us believe that there is value inherited in the product.
Plastic water
During the 1990’s there was a rapid growth in the plastic bottled water market. Till then, the market steadily grew, but this was mostly because of the expansion of boutique brands, like Perrier. Drinking Perrier was a form of lifestyle consumption, it was a popular way to show how sophisticated somebody was (Hawkins 2009). It is this steady growth that has been noticed by big global beverage companies and from there on, the bottled water market grew vastly in 20 years’ time because these companies bought up most of the hitherto existing bottled water companies, while at the same time expanding and creating their own bottled water brands. In these 20 years, and counting, bottled water came from a niche market and grew into a central commodity in the beverage industry (Hawkins 2009).
The invention of PET (polyethylene terephthalate) changed everything in the bottled water industry. PET is a sort of ‘plastic’ invented in 1940 and from then on broadly used in the food industry, because its properties are ideal for the use and interaction with food (Hawkins et al. 2015). Bottled
water was never a big product, with a big market share. But the invention of PET was so important for the beverage industry. PET made it possible to create a strong connection with its consumer due to its portability, lightweight, convenience, safety and transparency (Hawkins et al. 2015).
Emphasizing the importance of the packaging when talking about water may seem obvious, but it is seriously important. In other cases, the packaging might be subordinate to the content, since there is something special to buy, but in this case especially, packaging is important. “The bottling of water turns [a] (…) liquid into a mobile commercial beverage” (Hawkins et al. 2015: 3). The bottle made it possible for water to be distributed and consumed in a different way. New forms of economics emerged around this liquid, due to this packaging.
Figure 1 Global bottled water market: Per capita consumption by leading countries 1998-2003 (Wilk 2006).
Over the last years, the consumption of bottled kept on increasing, as can be seen in Figure 1 Global bottled water market: Per capita consumption by leading countries 1998-2003 (Wilk 2006). The bottled water market experienced a continuing growth, while the consumption of soft drinks is a stagnating market, mostly because the consumers shift to more healthy alternatives. The bottled water market already dominated in countries like France and Italy, which is known as the origin of many water brands. This domination on the market is due to the taste of water, the quality of the water and the aura of prestige (Hawkins et al. 2015). These foreign markets pushed the beverage markets of other countries and in this way were able to expand. And did so successfully.
Especially in the places with fresh mountain or well water, it seems that bottled water is booming business. At first glance, this might be surprising, since the availability of fresh water as a service given to the population is already there in the form of tap water and the usage of bottled water is still largely for hydration purposes. However, as the history of water has shown, the cultural logic of this water was the reason for increasing interest in this product.
European countries always have had the highest bottled water consumption compared to any other bottled water consuming country in the world (Marcussen et al. 2013). Figure 1 Global bottled water market: Per capita consumption by leading countries 1998-2003 (Wilk 2006). also shows just that; 10 of the top 15 countries with the highest per capita consumption are European. The global average, and therefore the consumption of bottled water in total, is increasing, but remarkably the quality of municipal water is also improving in most of the countries shown in Figure 1 Global bottled water market: Per capita consumption by leading countries 1998-2003 (Wilk 2006). (Marcussen et al. 2013).
Hawkins (2009) fairly notices that this should not be surprising or paradoxical anymore, especially now we know why it is that the mineral waters are favorite. “This tendency to distinguish taps from bottles in terms of a citizen/consumer opposition is completely inadequate. It denies the fact that hybridized citizenship and consumption practices now organize both taps and bottles. [Much] marketing of bottled water invites drinkers to (…) care for their health or access nature by converting to the bottle.” (Hawkins 2009: 191)
Water in the 21
stcentury
As we have seen, the difference between tap water and bottled water is the symbolism that surrounds these waters. In this difference lies the cultural and historical difference of why some people do and other people do not drink bottled water. This is what the bottled water industry has been exploiting and using in the proliferation of their mineral waters.
Water is an abundant liquid and essential for life. In order for water to be a successful product, it has to be framed it in such a way that a growing desire or need is created. One has to long for the water, because it is different from all the other waters. Some of these framings come naturally, literally, since fresh source water is already different from the one flowing from the tap and it has the association of health and purity. Other kinds of framing have been carefully created or emphasized by the bottle water industry. In this section, the importance of framing by the actor that sells water is highlighted.
“[Companies are] represented as a neutral mediators that simply make the remarkable intrinsic qualities of the water available to the consumer.” (Hawkins et al. 2015: 36) PET played a key role in making bottled water into a mass market product. PET bottles did not invent bottled water (since it was already there), however, it did boom the single-serve water. It also helped in reconfiguring how water was valued. What the marketing and bottling of the water enables, is the requalification of and detaching from the water from other settings. The requalification as a pure commodity, as a convenience beverage (Hawkins et al. 2015). This is similar to Marx’s point of alienation and it illustrates clearly how something can be commodified and alienated in such a way that it is now a beverage, where previously it was a luxury drink.
One of the most important properties of this framing of the commodity is that it is now portable. This portability enabled bottled water to be a booming business. This is also the way in which it is advertised and framed; as hydration on the go. Furthermore, an important framing is the framing of bottled water as pure. Another important framing is the framing as healthy. And the last is the safety aspect. These qualities of the water, as the water industry situated them, are all shared qualities. The water industry uses, when promoting the water, at least these four qualities, as they are all shared characteristics of all the bottled waters available on the market. The way in which bottled water is perceived everywhere, by everyone, is as a portable, pure, healthy and safe commodity. This has everything to do with how the market presented and promoted the bottled water. At the same time, it is the power of bottled water.
However, “a market arrangement is nothing without consumers who recognize the distinct qualifications surrounding the product and understand how to incorporate the product into their
world.” (Hawkins et al. 2015: xiii) And the costumers did know how to incorporate it in their world. When one wants to commodify water, one needs to put considered effort to separate it from its ordinary context and give it unique qualities. So, the bottle also conveys new meanings. In this way we see that packaging is far more than a functional device. This framing allows the personal attachment of the consumer with the product. It is that extra quality that makes it fit with the consumer itself. Packaging therefore allow for singularization of the mineral waters.
Contaminated water
One of the key incentives for the rapid expansion of the bottled water market in countries like the United States and Italy was the anxiety which arose in society (Wilk 2006). Water was not always drinkable in every part of the world, not even the developed countries. A lot of stories about public water contamination and lack of cleaning of the water by public authorities led to this anxiety (Kaplan 2011). In this niche, the bottled water market could exploit the pureness of its product, which made it a favorite under the consumers.
One of the main reasons for the interest in bottled water is the certainty that the water you drink is safe. Purity of water is not necessary for a big portion of the water uses (e.g. flushing toilets or extinguishing fire), but for a small part of the water it is, since the more people come in contact with it, the purer it has to be (Hamlin 2000). Drinking water is therefore the closest contact we can imagine and a reason why people want the water to be the purest as possible. This urge of safe water started to impersonate in bottled water, because the trust in public drinking water and tap water decreased (Clarke 2007).
In the last decennia a growing fear for public water started to break out, especially in the United States, but as well as several countries in Europe and around the globe. Worry sells, so the bottled water market had a perfect niche and opportunity to seize this fear and sell their product, which was of course as safe as water would get (Kaplan 2007). People could buy safety in a bottle. The fear for public water was on the one hand, because some water was polluted and on the other hand because chlorine and fluoridation were used to clean some of the public waters. So besides safety, purity is one of the main success factors, especially since it is compared to tap water. The beverage industry’s interest in the encouragement of water purchase could not find a better paradigm in which to sell their product. This also enable the privatization of water and the attack by water corporations on the public-sector of water infrastructure. With their multibillion dollar advertising campaigns, private companies could shift the public from the state-services to their product (Clarke 2007).
In this way, water in general was able to be more and more commodified. Since, as we saw in Kopytoff’s argument, tap water is hard to singularize. As compared to tap water, bottled water is the
perfect commodity for singularization. The singularization was partly done by the companies (its pureness was emphasized) but also by the consumer who could frame the bottled water in such a way that it would fit in their ideal world of drinking water that was now safe and pure.
Health
As illustrated, mineral water has the connotation with health, intrinsic therapeutic qualities and purity. This atmosphere of health, surrounding bottled water, especially those from springs, is strengthened by a new paradigm that came up around 1960. The subject of hydration became ever more popular (Race 2012). This could be situated in a new trend of increased interest in healthy lifestyle due to scientific literature on this. There was a big shift in consumer’s concern about well-being. Consumers became more aware of the idea that having a healthy lifestyle is preferable and moreover in your own hands. Therefore, more and more people are starting buy the things they believe is good for them. Especially compared to alcohol or soft drinks, water is virtuous. The minerals that are in the bottled water create a sense of agency with which the individual is able to purchase and deliberately choose health and purity. With a relatively small amount of money, one treats its body with supplements and a healthy refreshment, which is ideal in the light of the need for constant hydration (Kaplan 2007).
Health, health sciences and fitness were more and more situated in popular culture. The formation of bottled water markets relied very much on the subject of hydration. This discourse of hydration were scientifically framed principles and ideas of health. Allowing the bottled water to be an essential component of a healthy lifestyle. The principle of hydration established practices of drinking water and frequent sipping, because the consumer would always be at risk of dehydration (Race 2012). This discourse of hydration was established in a time where people were acting upon themselves, something that became prevalent in society. Ways in which this hydration could be enacted, therefore, were becoming market devices that offered what the body needs (Race 2012). Health regimens were marketed, due to the incongruities created by the mineral water businesses (Speier 2011).
Image 1 Evian’s ‘Reverse Mountain Poster’, June 2008 (source: google.com)
Image 2 Evian’s ‘Baby & Me’ advertising campaign, April 2013 (source: google.com)
To see how these points above come into existence, let us take a look at the following advertisements by Evian. A quick search for Evian’s advertising campaigns show that Evian promotes two things: their source of the French Alps and the resemblance with babies. These two aspects are clearly demonstrated in Image 1 Evian’s ‘Reverse Mountain Poster’, June 2008 (source: google.com) and Image 2 Evian’s ‘Baby & Me’ advertising campaign, April 2013 (source: google.com), but also are illustrative for the arguments on purity, health and hydration addressed above.
What we clearly see in Image 1 Evian’s ‘Reverse Mountain Poster’, June 2008 (source: google.com), is that the Alps are the source of Evian’s water. In fact it is even possible to say, when looking at this image, that the water inside Evian’s bottle comes directly from this fresh source. This shows two things: Evian water is as pure as can be, because what illustrates pureness better than untouched mountains? Secondly, it shows that Evian is natural, just as the inscription implies. When safety is an issue for the consumer, the vivid image provoked by Evian may be what is needed to fit this perception of water into the consumer’s ideal world of safe water. Image 1 Evian’s ‘Reverse Mountain Poster’, June 2008 (source: google.com) also does a great job in showing that the water
inside Evian’s bottles is untouched by humans. 4 Evian’s Bottled water is in this way able to hand you a
part of nature.
Image 2 Evian’s ‘Baby & Me’ advertising campaign, April 2013 (source: google.com) is twofold, the comparison with babies serves two things: the first is that Evian’s water is also very good and an even more healthy substitute for tap water in preparing baby food and hydrating your baby, but the second is really to show that it can make you young again. Evian’s slogan rightly so is ‘Drink pure and natural, Live Young’. The reference to babies are ‘true to their heritage’, since Evian’s water was recommended as perfect water for babies in 1935, and upon today still is recommended that way. Besides that, babies are ‘the true symbol of purity and youth’4. Evian states that there is a baby
inside everyone. The idea is that when one drinks Evian, it will bring life to the baby inside of you, as the advertisement in Image 2 Evian’s ‘Baby & Me’ advertising campaign, April 2013 (source: google.com) tries to show. Evian, in this way, represents the returning to your inner child.
What I tried to show by discussing these images, is that the bottled water company Evian, tries to create a new ideal world for the consumers to believe in. It is one where we want to give life to the baby that apparently is inside of us and it also is one where, if we think of water, think of pure water and therefore of Evian. This is what McCracken and Campbell explained by creating a new truth for the consumer to believe in, an ideal to strive for.
4 The information about Evian and its water are all retrieved from http://www.evian.com/nl_nl/ (accessed 3/12/2015)
Conclusion
With bottled water, cultural logic leads to irrational environmental destructive behavior (Wilk 2006). This thesis on bottled water has clearly showed one thing: there is much more than ‘common sense’ or rationality when it comes to consumption. The reason for consumption of bottled water in contemporary society, is to be found in the fact that the consumption of it is a practice started centuries ago. The cultural logic of sipping bottled water now, can only be addressed when understanding the cultural history and historical logic of water consumption.
What Marx’s commodity fetishism has thought, is that there is a gap created in which the consumer does not think about what they consume anymore, the consumers are alienated from their commodity. They do not consider the background and value of the object when buying it. The use-value is replaced by the commodity use-value, in this way, it seems that commodities have use-value inherited in themselves. For bottled water this is relevant, because it explains why people want the water not merely because of the use-value of hydrating, but because of the added value that the bottled water supposedly has. People are so fed up in the commodity fetishism that it sometimes is hard to see the use-value of bottled water and the paradox in the fact that the hydration given by drinking bottled water, could also be gained from the tap. Mineral water was really starting be commodified in the 18th
century, when the experience of drinking mineral water and going to spas and wells started to be more commercialized. The use-value of the water started to be outweighed by the commodity value it gained, the value was inherited in the commodity itself.
This created opportunity to see value (or create value) as something more. By commodifying the bottled water, it was available for singularization. In this light, mineral water has been able to become more than just hydration, it came, and still comes, with the symbolism surrounding the water. Mineral water was something only wealthy people could afford. Besides that, it has the connotation of health and purity. That is why bottled water can be made to something very personal (while tap water cannot easily reach this condition). This allows bottled water to be in the process of singularization: consumers can make bottled water their own, since it is now commodified. By singularizing water, value is attached to it and the water can carry a special place in the life of the consumer. In history, the singularization mainly took the form of ‘showing of status’ with mineral water. Due to the commodification and singularization, bottled water is able to be a property for showing status or identity. Since commodities are perfect ways to show who one is or wants to be to the outside world.
The reason that people use bottled water to create their identity has everything to do with the way the water realizes their ideal world. Due to advertisements of bottled water, that are mostly about pureness, healthy lifestyles and feeling young, the consumer can create this imaginary ideal
world of being the healthy young adolescence when drinking bottled water while on the go. This is, due to the increase in concerns about healthy lifestyles, (an ever more occurring phenomenon) which is also the main reason for the blossoming of the bottled water market. Add to this, that the bottled water market strongly promoted the idea of tap water to be contaminated, and the idea is created that bottled water is essential for your ideal world of health and youth.
In addressing all of these points, hopefully the answer on the research question can be found. The research question was: what motivates consumer behavior in the consumption of irrational and irrelevant products, like bottled water? There is not a straightforward way to answer this. Obviously, the answers can only be found in the history and theories addressed above. The answer has a multitude of aspects to be considered. The main point to be made is perhaps that the irrationality and irrelevance of bottled water, and other products, is only true if cultural logic, history and the drive for consumption are ignored. Since consuming bottled water is all but irrelevant for the consumer: it opens up a world for them to be who they are and identify themselves.
If a proper answer to the question can be given, I will argue for the following. When bottled water, and other products, have been commodified, they become alienated from their background. This allows the products to be interpreted and used in different ways, in the case of water, a strong historical process paved the way for this. This cultural history has been used up until now to strengthen the ideas surrounding bottled water, with the markets exploiting this strongly by trying to fit it in this ideal world of the consumer. All this time, bottled water and its distinctiveness from other waters has become some sort of own reality. This distinctiveness is attacked by a lot of critics, but has remained so strong due to years and years of historical believe that preceded it, that it has become a truth in itself. As Campbell (1987) helped to explain, irrational behavior is rational for the consumer who is in an illusion that he knows to be actually false. The explanation of this behavior therefore is the willingness to believe its truth and the strive for an ideal life where bottled water is part of that reality.
Obviously the motivation for bottled water consumption cannot be answered in one way. In this thesis I have made an attempt to explain the bottled water consumption from a more anthropological and historical perspective, because in my point of view this is what was missing in the scientific literature. However, more research should be done, in the consumption discipline as well as in the economic anthropology and elsewhere, on the way that rationality loses it from irrationality, applied to consumption. It is culture that should explain why economics are not sufficient to explain consumer behavior. Because only then, can we make sense of a world full of consumer paradoxes. And only then, can we create an ideal sustainable world through rational consumption.
Bibliography
Appadurai, A.
1986 Introduction: Commodities and the Politics of Value. In: Appadurai, A. (Ed.), The Social Life of Things. Commodities in Cultural Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 3-63.
Baudrillard, J.
2001 Excerpts from ‘Consumer Society’, and ‘For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign', in: Poster, Mark (ed.), Jean Baudrillard. Selected Writings. Stanford: Stanford University Press: 38-52, 66-78.
Billig, Michael
1999 Commodity Fetishism and Repression. Reflections on Marx, Freud and the Psychology of Consumer Capitalism. Theory & Psychology 9(3):313-329.
Burnett, J.
1999 Water: ‘The most useful and necessary part of the creation’. In: Burnett, J., Liquid pleasures: A social history of drinks in modern Britain. London:, Routledge: 7-18. Campbell, C.
1987 The Romantic Ethic and the Spirit of Modern Consumerism. Oxford: Blackwell: 36-57. Clarke, T.
2007 Inside the bottle: Exposing the bottled water industry. Ottawa: Canadian Ctr for Policy. Eriksen, T. H.
2010 Small places, large issues: An introduction to social and cultural anthropology. London: Pluto Press.
Hamlin, C.
2000 ‘Waters’ or ‘Water’? - master narratives in water history and their implications for contemporary water policy. Water Policy 2(4): 313-325.
Hawkins, G.
2009 The Politics of Bottled Water. Journal of Cultural Economy 2(1-2): 183-195.
2011 Packaging water: plastic bottles as market and public devices. Economy and Society 40(4): 534-552
Hawkins, G., Potter, E., & Race, K.
2015 Hawkins et al. 2015: The social and material life of bottled water. London: The MIT Press.
