George Ritzer, and Todd Stillman 2001 The Modern Las Vegas Casino-Hotel: The

M@n@gement, Vol. 4, No. 3, 2001, 83-99

Special Issue: Deconstructing Las Vegas

85

Paradigmatic New Means of Consumption

settings are both rationalized and enchanted. Rationalization serves to

expedite consumption, while enchantment lures consumers to these

sites. Consumer settings have been in existence for centuries, but the

concern in Enchanting a Disenchanted World, and here, is with the

“new” means of consumption—those that came into existence in the

United States after the close of WW II. After we offer more of the the-

oretical background to this issue, we will turn to the casino-hotel and

demonstrate how well it fits the idea of new means/cathedrals of con-

sumption, as well as the basic processes associated with these set-

tings.

Although the term “means of consumption” is derived from his work,

Karl Marx is far better known for the superficially parallel concept of the

means of production. By the latter, Marx meant those things (e.g.,

tools, raw materials, factories) that made production possible and

made it necessary for laborers to work for capitalists. Given the struc-

ture of capitalism, the fact that the capitalists owned the means of pro-

duction also made it convenient to exploit workers. To be allowed

access to the means of production, workers had to sell their labor time

to the capitalists. When workers sell their labor, capitalists exploit them

by paying less than the value of what they produce. In Marx’s labor

theory of value, the value of any commodity is traceable to labor. This

means that paying workers anything less than the full value of what

they produce amounts to exploitation. In fact, workers are paid far

less—a subsistence wage—than the value of their production and the

remainder goes to the undeserving capitalist.

Marx also uses the concept of the means of consumption and it is rea-

sonable to expect him to employ it in a way that is consistent with his

idea of the means of production. Yet Marx defines the means of con-

sumption as commodities and differentiates between the luxury means

of consumption (e.g., fine mansions) and the necessary means of con-

sumption (e.g., basic foodstuffs needed to survive). The conceptual

problem here is that commodities and the means of consumption

mean exactly the same thing to Marx. We know, however, that the

things we consume are not the same as the settings in which they are

consumed.

Hence we need to deviate from Marx to define the means of con-

sumption. The roots of an alternative and parallel definition of the

means of consumption can be found in the concept of the means of

production. The means of production occupy an intermediate position

between workers and products; we need a sense of the means of con-

sumption that occupy a similarly intermediate position between con-

sumers and commodities. Thus, the means of consumption can be

defined as those things, especially settings, that allow consumers

access to commodities; they allow consumers to consume.

As with Marx’s ideas about production, a key issue is whether the

means of consumption are employed to exploit consumers in the same

way that the means of production are used to exploit workers. It could

be argued that the means of consumption lead consumers into hyper-

consumption: buying more than they intend, paying more than they

should (to help pay for the cathedrals of consumption and to increase

---

M@n@gement, Vol. 4, No. 3, 2001, 83-99

Special Issue: Deconstructing Las Vegas

86

George Ritzer and Todd Stillman

profit margins), spending more than they can afford, going deeply into

debt, and so on. While there is certainly exploitation taking place, is it

the same as the exploitation of the worker through the means of pro-

duction?

It is difficult to argue that consumers are exploited in the same

sense that workers are exploited. Owners of the means of con-

sumption do not have the same coercive power over consumers that

owners of the means of production have over workers. Consumers

are free not to use a particular means of consumption or to avoid

means of consumption altogether. It is worth pointing out, however,

that if consumers want goods and services, it is hard to avoid a

means of consumption. More specifically, they increasingly must

use one of the new means of consumption since these are driving

out most of the alternatives, including the older means of consump-

tion (e.g., independent groceries, diners, cafes [Oldenburg 1989;

Nasaw, 1993]).

Picking up on more recent developments in Marxian theory (e.g.,

Braverman, 1974), it is more plausible to argue that the key issue in

both today’s means of production and means of consumption is con-

trol rather than exploitation. Just as today’s means of production

(actually those who lead and work in them) seek to gain control over

workers, the means of consumption seek to control consumers. Both

production and consumption settings are set up to get people to

behave in the desired ways. However, the means of production can

still rely on “hard” measures of control (e.g., reprimands, suspension,

firing), while such measures are not available to those who control the

means of consumption. Instead, consumer settings must rely on “soft”

methods of control such as structuring settings in such a way that

consumers unconsciously behave in ways that are in the best inter-

ests of those who control and profit from the means of consumption.

Thus, while the means of consumption may not exploit people in the

same way as the means of production, they control people in a simi-

lar way.

How do the means of consumption control consumers? It is here that

the notion of the cathedrals of consumption comes into play. There are

two defining characteristics of any type of cathedral—rationalization

and enchantment. These two concepts move us away from Marxian

theory and in the direction of Weberian theory.

In saying that the cathedrals of consumption are rationalized we are

saying, in Weberian terms, that they exhibit formal rationality: they

lead people to find the most efficient path to whatever end they are

seeking. Formal rationality is one of four types of rationality identified

by Weber. The other types are practical, theoretical, and substantive

rationality, each of which highlights a particular dimension of rational

action (see Ritzer, 2000). Weber believed that the modern era was

characterized by an increase in formal rationality, in relation to the

other types, because it is well suited to the competitive conditions of

capitalism. In the cathedrals of consumption, both cathedral and con-

sumer employ rationality, though the rationalities can conflict. Con-

sumers who enter a means of consumption may have an end or ends

---