Review: The Question of Needs

Author(s): Kathleen M. Blee

Source: Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 15, No. 6 (Nov., 1986), pp. 823-826
Published by: American Sociological Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2071109 .
Accessed: 23/01/2011 17:14

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asa. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Contemporary Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org
 REVIEWESSAYS
professors' side, their own careers and/or family
demandsstructureadditionalobstacles to important
mentoringrelationships.
Not surprisingly, relationships with men con-
tinue to pose problems in this historical period of
tortuously changing gender roles. The feminist
ideal of heterosexualegalitarianismcreates confu-
sion amid a palpablestruggleto establish mutually
satisfying relationships. Behavior between male
and female friendsis more likely to be markedby a
deliberateegalitarianismin financialarrangements,
initiation of interaction, and self-disclosure. This
stands in marked contrast to the initial stages of
dating, where sharing financial responsibility,
particularly, conveys the "wrong" signals. The
early dating phase is fraught with ambiguity,
confusion, and strain stemming largely from
rapidlyevolving gender-roleexpectations.Komarov-
sky describes both interpersonaland intrapsychic
conflicts arising from the "clash between some
idiosyncratic psychic wish . . . and an internal-
ized value" (228). She notes that, in the process,
"each sex may reach out for the double dose of
privileges . . . laying the burdenof all obligations
upon their partners"(228).
Thus, the earlier and simpler female conflict of
thinkingsmartand acting dumbis replacedby a far
more complex picture. The rope burns of braided
new and traditionalexpectations leave their mark
on the minds and spirits of some. Almost
miraculously,otheremerge unscarred,conveying a
The Questionof Needs
Capitalism, Consumption,and Needs, by EDMOND PRETECEILLE AND JEAN-PIERRE TERRAIL. New York:
Basil Blackwell, 1985. 220 pp. $34.95 cloth.
KATHLEEN M. BLEE
Universityof Kentucky
The applicability of Marxist theory to the
analysis of advanced capitalist societies often has
been questioned. Recently, the rise of consumer
movements in WesternEuropeand North America
has shed doubt upon the traditionalcentralityof the
workplace in Marxist analyses of political move-
ments. Social movements have proliferated in
areas seemingly distant from the relations and
processes of production. Workplace and labor
union organizinghave declined, even as organiza-
tions for social change and societal transformation
have flourished in neighborhoodsand municipali-
ties. Moreover, the issues that provoke mobiliza-
tion among the middle and working classes have
not been restrictedto production-basedissues but
include struggles over the nature of life outside
823
surprisinglyclear sense of purpose and direction.
Komarovskyskillfully explores why and how some
students manage to deal successfully with aca-
demic traumataand sociopsychologicaltransitions,
while others fall victim to the special demands of
an elite academic institution.
Reliance on in-depth interviews is simulta-
neously the obvious weakness and the unique
strengthof the study. The method bears the usual
statisticalburdensof a relatively small sample, as
well as a host of other methodological shortcom-
ings to which qualitativedata are heir. In addition,
the capacity to generalize from this very special
elite academic context to a wider world is
obviously problematical.Nonetheless, in the hands
of this sensitive and skillful investigator, these
interview data offer a window on the college
experience of bright women students struggling
with the challenges of a world in transition.
Astute educational policy makers and adminis-
trators will find various cues for developing
policies, practices, and institutionalarrangements
thatmight enhancethe college experience. Parents,
too, might gain a penetrating glimpse into the
anguish their expectations can impose on their
children. Other, more methodologically sophisti-
cated researchers might gather the seeds to
generatemore quantitativemodels. To answer our
initial question, "No, we don't really need another
study of college students, but it certainly would
have been a shame to miss this one." f
waged work. Gender and family relations, the
quality of the environmentand consumer goods,
and the level of state services all have served as
pivotal issues for importantsocial movements in
advancedcapitalist societies.
Traditional categories of Marxist analysis are
challenged also from a different direction. Re-
searchon twentieth-centuryworking-classpolitical
quiescence locates its source in a matrixof power
and domination shaped by commodified mass
culture. Oppositionalmovements by an organized
working class are seen to be less likely and less
viable as class domination becomes systematized
into a patternof manipulateddesires and artificial
needs. Capitalism penetrates work and nonwork
life alike, channeling discontent into desires that
824 REVIEWESSAYS
can be commodified and satisfied within the
existing social logic. A productionprocess based
on alienated labor redirects workers' resultant
dissatisfactioninto a desire for nonwork time-a
leisure that can be packagedby capital and sold to
the working class at a profit.
Preteceilleand Terrail,in a series of four related
essays, develop a comprehensiveMarxisttheoryof
needs that addresses these political and cultural
dimensions of advanced capitalist society. They
examine the issues of consumption,consumerism,
and the creationof needs that have been centralto
social movements and mass culture in late
twentieth-centuryWestern capitalism. In contrast
to works that simply criticize the nature of
"consumer societies," Capitalism, Consumption,
and Needs probes the patterns of individual and
collective consumption that exist behind an
appearance of mass consumption and advances
how we understandthe creation of needs among
dominatedclasses. While not minimizing ideology
and daily life practicesoutside the workplace, they
avoid overinterpretingsymbolic relations of status
at the expense of materialrelationsof social class.
As such, they make an importantcontributionto
the development of a Marxist theory of politics,
culture, and daily life.
In Capitalism, Consumption, and Needs,
Preteceilleand Terraildevelop a Marxistapproach
to the questionof needs that is sharplyat odds with
the analysis of consumption in non-Marxist
economicsand sociology. Neoclassicaland Keynes-
ian economics have situated consumption as a
determinantof production,sparkinga vast research
literatureon consumer behavior and demand in
which class relations and the interrelation of
production, consumption, and needs largely re-
main unanalyzed. In contrast, the materialist
analysis proposed by Preteceille and Terrail
situates consumptionwithin the logic of capitalist
production.The contradictionsof uneven develop-
ment, overproductionof commodities, and scarcity
of essential needs in affluent societies are analyzed
within a logic of capitalist production and
reproduction.
Preteceille and Terrail are critical of the
sociological studies of consumptionexemplified in
what they refer to as the "differentialist" move-
mentof Bourdieuand Baudrillard,where consump-
tion is seen as the production of differentiation.
Veblen's (1912) indictment of the consumption
practices of the leisure class and Halbwachs'
(1958) studies of how class membershipshapes the
translationof income into consumption practices
are echoed in contemporary studies of the
organizationof class in, and through,consumption
activities.Although"differentialists"like Bourdieu
may argue the primacy of relations of production
over symbolic distinctions, Preteceille and Terrail
insist that this theory ultimately subordinatesclass
relationsto ideological relations. Such analyses of
the consumptionof signs of difference and of the
penetrationof the commodity form into all aspects
of daily life, they conclude, tend to minimize the
transformativepotential of working-class move-
ments. The differentialist approach positions the
creation of desire and needs outside the relation-
ship of consumptionto productionso that domina-
tion ceases to be amenable to revolutionary
restructuringof productionrelations.
PreteceilleandTerrailrefuteboththe economistic
and the differentialist conceptions of needs.
Instead, they pose an analysis of social needs as
the product of the reproduction of a particular
mode of production. Needs are both an outcome
of, and a contradictoryinfluence upon, the logic of
capitalistproduction.For example, Preteceille and
Terrail argue that needs for improved working-
class education (an outcome both of increased
requirementsfor the reproductionof labor power
and of class struggle) tend to increase both the
value of labor power and the political resourcesof
the working class. This analysis is a welcome
corrective to theories of state services that either
stress the manipulative,cooptive natureof services
to dominated classes or view services as the
victorious outcomes of working-classstruggles.
PreteceilleandTerraildrawupon the differential-
ist understandingof the expansion of capitalist
relations as a total way of life in state-monopoly
capitalist society. Yet, they situate this within an
analysis of social relations and materialpractices
as these are mediatedby work and the relations of
production. Preteceille and Terrail thus avoid a
sociology of despairin which assertionof desire by
the workingclass serves to strengthenthe matrixof
class power and domination. Instead, they pose
class struggleas the means by which the emerging
needs of the working class to escape capitalist
relations of production and reproduction-needs
that can never be satisfied within a logic of
capitalism-can be realized.
Preteceille and Terrail apply this theory of
consumption and needs to current conditions in
state monopoly capitalism. Needs, they argue,
arise not from capital's manipulationof insatiable
consumerappetites,but from class struggleand the
changing conditions for the reproductionof labor
power. They note, for example, the increasing
amountof hidden labor time and consumer goods
involved in householdconsumption.The shift from
corner marketsand delivery services to supermar-
kets and shopping malls (requiring automobiles
and time to travel) represents a transfer of work
from capital to consumers, and thus an erosion of
nonwork time for the working class as a whole.
Shortening the work day, therefore, does not
 REVIEWESSAYS
increase uncommitted time if household and
consumerwork is expanding.
Conditions of collective consumption are ana-
lyzed also as the result of contradictorytendencies
of class struggle and pressuresfor reproductionof
labor power and the political integration of the
workingclass. Preteceilleand Terrailsee consumer
movements as neitherfutile nor revolutionary,but
as having the possibility of challenging capitalist
productionrelations. Although consumerneeds do
not necessarily contradictexisting arrangementsof
production and class, they may raise more
fundamentalissues. The desire for higher quality
consumergoods or for socialized consumption,for
example, may shape needs for a logic of
productiondifferent from that of profitability.
The same contradictory dynamics of class
struggle infuse relations of production in state-
monopoly capitalism. Preteceille and Terrail dis-
cuss how the introductionof smaller work groups
by capitalist managementin search of stable labor
relations and higher productivitymay create needs
for nonalienated work-needs that cannot be
satisfied within a capitalist mode of production.
Similarly, local movements against plant closure
are defensive struggles, but may also challenge
capital's drive for profit and affirm workers' needs
for identity as productivelaborers.
Preteceille and Terrailconclude by proposing a
broadpolitical agendain which needs are acknowl-
edged across the range of daily life concerns, from
work to health, the environment, and living
conditions. They stress the importance of a
class-based politics, but see a tendency toward
interclassalliances as heightenedcapitalistproduc-
tivity increases the objective benefits of socialism
in work and nonwork life for the middle and
working classes. As the traditional separation
between the politics of productionand the politics
of consumption and daily life is eroded by the
contradictionsand crises of state-monopolycapital-
ism, social movementsbased on productionand on
consumption, they suggest, may converge in
ideology and practice.
Capitalism, Consumption, and Needs is an
importantcontributionto developing a genuinely
Marxist theory of needs, consumption, and the
politics of daily life. It presentsa thoroughcritique
from a materialist perspective of the issues of
commodificationof leisure and the dominationof
desire. The insistence on consumption and needs
as crucial in an analysis of advanced capitalist
society is not new to Preteceille and Terrail, yet
other work, as Kellner (1983: 69-75) argues, has
tended to downplay class conflict and pose
ideological/culturaldomination as impervious to
significant challenges from dominated groups.
Preteceille and Terrail, by linking issues of needs
and consumptionto the logic of capitalist produc-
825
tion, ratherthan to the sphereof circulation,make
class conflict central to their analysis.
Preteceille and Terrail acknowledge the greater
burden of household and consumption work on
women relative to men, but their analysis would
benefit from greaterattentionto issues of gender.
Two aspects in particularare problematic. First,
Preteceille and Terrail situate their analysis of
consumption practices at the social unit of the
household. This encompassesthe widest varietyof
living/consumption arrangements,but at the ex-
pense of a sharpanalysisof genderrelations. Since
family and gender relationships structure most
households in twentieth-centuryadvanced capital-
ist societies, a focus on household rather than
family mutes the analysis of gender. Closer
attention to feminist research and theory would
strengthen Preteceille and Terrail's argument.
Feminist researchnot only affirms the inseparabil-
ity of production and consumption/reproduction
(which Preteceille and Terrail also argue, from a
materialist perspective) but also clarifies the
differential effect of relations of production and
consumption on women and men (Hartmann,
1981; Kelly, 1983). Indeed, gender relations are
central to the analysis of individualand collective
consumption in advanced capitalist society. A
more comprehensive exploration of the gender
basis of consumption work also would enrich
PreteceilleandTerrail'sdiscussionof consumption-
based politics and the possibilities for interclass
gender-basedpolitical alliances.
Second, by not confrontingcontemporaryfemi-
nist researchdirectly, Preteceilleand Terrailfail to
elaborate on the gender consequences of class
issues. For example, they see the increase in labor
force participationby marriedwomen as supple-
mental to the wage of (male) workers and as
representinga decline in the quality of life for the
working class. This analysis addresses the aggre-
gate quantityof uncommittedtime amongworking-
class households without sufficiently exploring the
complicated issues of gender relations and finan-
cial dependency that underlie women's position
within production and reproduction. Although a
materialistanalysis of consumptionhighlights the
nexus of class and productionrelations that shape
gender relations, it runs the risk of minimizingthe
dynamicsof family and genderthat shape the work
of consumption and reproduction. Research on
gender in advancedcapitalist society confirms the
impact of gender ideology and the material
practices of family life on the structure of
consumptionand the creationof social needs.
Future development of a materialisttheory of
consumptionand needs must address these issues
of gender and family relations. Nevertheless,
Capitalism, Consumption,and Needs is a major
advance in Marxist understandingof advanced
826 REVIEWESSAYS
capitalist societies. Preteceille and Terrailprovide
a careful, systematic overview of the issues of
consumer culture and the production of social
needs that are basic to the agenda of politics and
theory in twentieth-centurycapitalism. This is an
importantbook for understandingthe complicated
nature of consumption and politics in modem
capitalistlife. I
Other Literature Cited
Halbwachs, Maurice. 1958. The Psychology of Social
Class. London:Heinemann.
Are Health Systems BecomingMore Socialized?
National Strategiesfor Health Care Organization:A World Overview, by MILTON I. ROEMER.Ann
Arbor, MI: Health AdministrationPress, 1985. 426 pp. $27.00 cloth.
RAY H. ELLING
Universityof ConnecticutHealth Center
This book collects adaptedand revised versions
of twenty-five articles, chapters, addresses, and
reports written since 1976, some of them previ-
ously published and others in the form of working
papers, essays, or reports to internationalhealth
agencies. The author is the preeminentscholar of
our time in the comparative study of national
healthsystems. He is a mentorof mine, and I am a
long-term admirerof the author's work, but this
review will present a balanced view. There are
points to be criticized as well as many to be
appreciated.
The twenty-five chapters are organized in five
parts:
-historical backgroundand overview of health
care organization,includingtrends, financing,
and structureof systems;
-developing countries, made up of one chapter
on overall health care organization and
structure, plus individual countries (Guate-
mala, Barbados,Thailand, Kenya, Malaysia);
-industrialized nations, including an overview
of health policies and strategies and their
effects in Europe, as well as chapters on
Norway, the United Kingdom, and Canada;
-socialist countries, including analyses of both
industrialized and less economically devel-
oped nations (USSR, Poland, Cuba, People's
Republic of China);
-an examinationof general health care policy
issues under different national strategies
(ambulatory care, regionalization of health
services, coordinatingpersonneldevelopment
Hartmann,Heidi I. 1981. "The Family as the Locus of
Gender, Class, and Political Struggle:The Example of
Housework." Signs 6:366-94.
Kellner, Douglas. 1983. "CriticalTheory, Commodities,
and ConsumerSociety." Theory, Culture, and Society
1:66-83.
Kelly, Joan, 1983. "The Doubled Vision of Feminist
Theory." In Sex and Class in Women's History, ed.
Judith L. Newton, Mary P. Ryan, and Judith R.
Walkowitz. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Veblen, Thorstein. 1912. The Theory of the Leisure
Class. New York: Macmillan.
and services, health insurance, and planning
methodologies).
This is rich fare for the student of comparative
health systems and international health. It is
informed by deep, wide, and long experience.
From a sociological perspective, one of the most
valuable contributionsis found in chapter3, "The
Structureand Types of Health Service Systems."
Having recognized a set of forces, including the
physical and social environments, the biological
status of a nation's population, and the health
services as determinants of a "population's
physical, mental, and social well-being" (the
WHO definition of health), the author gives
primacyto political economic forces. Fromthis, he
derives a nine-cell typology of national health
systems.
Along one axis is level of resources (affluent or
industrialized,moderate or developing, and poor
or underdeveloped);along the other are political
economic forms (permissive or laissez-faire, coop-
erative or welfare, socialist or centrally planned).
By way of examples, the United States of America
fits in the affluent permissive box, the UK in the
affluent cooperative, and the Soviet Union in the
affluent socialist. At the moderatelevel, the three
political economic types are exemplified by the
Philippines, Peru, and Cuba, and at the poor level,
Ghana, Tanzania, and China.
There would be much to discuss about such a
typology. For example, how dynamicor frozen are
the placements of countries? Ghana and the
Philippines today are in ferment and challenging
their dependenceon the capitalistworld-system(of