The paradox of choice

Nowadays we, people, live in a society were consumerism is a huge part on our daily lifes. For
me to be able to answer the main question I need to stablish the differences between liquid
and solid consumption.

I will define liquid consumption as access based, and dematerialized, therefore ephemeral.
Solid consumption on the other hand is tangible, ownership based, therefore enduring.
Normally we tend to focus just on solid consumerism, however, it is necessary for us as a
society to comprehend the liquid consumption. This type of consumerism consist on access,
immediacy, use and dematerialization, instead of accumulation or appropriation.

For the definition of liquid consumption, I was inspired by Bauman’s book liquid modernity.
Despite the fact that his book does not talk about consumerism, I used his metaphor with the
liquid.

With the theoretical tool liquid consumption gives us we can understand why some consumers
do not want to align their identities with consumption or link themselves with brands.

If anyone need to understand this concept better, we can conceptualize solid and liquid
consumerism. We need to identify four condition in order to understand the concept: nature
of relationship, relevance to the self, nature of precarity and accessibility to mobility networks.
Solid consumption is based on high relevance to the self, low accessibility, economic precarity
and non-commoditized social relationships. Whereas liquid consumption is based on low
relevance to the self, high accessibility, professional precarity and commoditized and
monetized relationships.

When relevant to the self is high consumption will be solid. Consumer tend to extend the life
of possessions if they are meaningful to the self and they suffer their loss. When the relevance
to the self is low, for instance, when shearing a car consumers tend to avoid identification with
the item.

Access to mobility systems and infrastructure will enable one to engage in liquid consumption,
when consumers have access to these networks, consumption can be liquid; when access to
mobility networks is limited, consumption is mostly solid.

The nature of social relationships can also have an impact on consumerism. When
relationships are based on solid ties, like for instance, brand communities, the nature of
consumption will be more solid. In contrast, is those relationships are more underlined by
instrumentality, liquid consumerism will be more dominant.

Precarity can be managed by either solid or liquid consumption depending on its source. If
precarity stems from economic downward mobility, consumers tend to solidify their
consumption as a way to regain stability, control and security. If precarity stems from
professional insecurity, consumers rely on liquid consumption.

To sum up, we still have the problem of the paradox of choice and consumerism has become
ephemeral to.