No. Consumption is in fact a form of labor. One that in some manifestations is employed in support of natural hedonism; but often has little or no relation other than that hedonism is used to propagandize the consumption.
In the United States this is particularly and sometimes painfully obvious, when people who do not wish participate in certain forms of consumption are sanctioned in various forms. This sanctioning can be overt "You'll need to wear a suit and tie if you're you want this job." or covert, "That guy rides a bike to work, wonder if he got a DUII?" Keeping up with the Joneses is the job you have when you aren't at work.
One of the surprising things about social status in America is how often certain forms of consumption are effectively mandatory to signal ones class membership. Go looking for a CEO of a publicly traded company who chooses not to own a car for instance. Or a partner at a major law firm who does not have more than one residence. Those are only gross examples, one that is more familiar is the prevalence of electronic gadgets, especially those by Apple as symbols of membership in the digital worker class.
The truth is that our choices in those matters are socially constructed, and that social construction happens in response to needs that are historically contingent rather than deterministic in nature. True a certain amount of consumption, of food, shelter and medical care is biologically determined; the rest is cultural.
Oh, it gets worse than all that. Every so often you hear stories floating around about managers, in these sorts of signal-ridden workplaces, who threaten the jobs of employees who don't consume to the appropriate level. Why? It's really much more straightforward than only "class signalling": if the worker consumes too little, they'll get out of debt, and thus they'll be far less captive to one particular employer. Therefore, employees must be encouraged to be do things like purchasing new cars every so often, to keep the Golden Handcuffs tight.
This is so true. I don't presently have a goal to rise at my current job, so I don't dress the part. If I did want to advance, I'd have to spend around $2,000 on more formal attire, and probably $1,000 on gifts and other kinds of spending. I might even have to get a degree of some kind in the field. I'd also have to go to bars and social events on a regular basis, after working hours.
In the United States this is particularly and sometimes painfully obvious, when people who do not wish participate in certain forms of consumption are sanctioned in various forms. This sanctioning can be overt "You'll need to wear a suit and tie if you're you want this job." or covert, "That guy rides a bike to work, wonder if he got a DUII?" Keeping up with the Joneses is the job you have when you aren't at work.
One of the surprising things about social status in America is how often certain forms of consumption are effectively mandatory to signal ones class membership. Go looking for a CEO of a publicly traded company who chooses not to own a car for instance. Or a partner at a major law firm who does not have more than one residence. Those are only gross examples, one that is more familiar is the prevalence of electronic gadgets, especially those by Apple as symbols of membership in the digital worker class.
The truth is that our choices in those matters are socially constructed, and that social construction happens in response to needs that are historically contingent rather than deterministic in nature. True a certain amount of consumption, of food, shelter and medical care is biologically determined; the rest is cultural.