The continuing significance of social structure in liquid modernity

Bauman’s liquid modernity has been influential among consumer culture theorists in recent times. A key element of this thinking is that old social structures have broken down, consumers being less encumbered by their structural origins and freer to pursue more diverse lifestyles. The ensuing three commentaries critically examine the claim that old social structures have become less relevant. Caldwell and Henry detail some of the critiques of Bauman and point out that consumers’ management of liquidity versus solidity can be usefully understood using a Bourdieusian lens. Their arguments are informed by contemporary literature focusing on social class, family life cycle and mythical role preferences. Thompson and Kumar argue that inconspicuous consumption masks social class-based differences in the distribution of resources that act to maintain structural inequalities. Parsons and Cappellini explore how conditions of liquidity mean that some people can accrue value much more easily than others. These authors argue that the enabling capacities that prevail under conditions of liquidity (e.g. flexibility, idiosyncratic taste) are not new but rather have long been known to act as enablers of success among advantaged classes.