Pet ownership and Related Consumption Practices: the Role of Moralization

Insufficient attention has been given to moral issues surrounding consumption (Hilton 2004; Miller 2001). Moreover, in spite of the exhaustive empirical coverage of the moral status of animals, both from a philosophical and political perspective and the belief that “consumption is in essence a moral matter” (Wilk 2001, p.246), very little empirical consideration has been given to the moral issues relating to the consumption practices associated with pet ownership (Kwak, Zinkhan and French 2001). In general, studies on morality consider the subject in terms of the rightness or wrongness of an individual’s behavior as guided by a societal code of conduct agreed to by the members of that particular society (Shaw 1991; Wallace and Walker 1970). However, in outlining a sociological view of morality, Caruana’s (2007a, p.295) constructivist perspective suggests a broader, more fluid and subjective interpretation of morality. As this perspective acknowledges the “dialectic relationship between society and the morality of those individuals who constitute it,” Caruana (2007a, p.299) argues further that a constructivist approach may be more “useful in a contemporary society no longer characterized by dominant institutions.” Sometimes the terms “morality” and “ethics” are used interchangeably, (particularly within the consumer research literature), however we follow Caruana’s (2007a, p.288) distinction that while morality is concerned with defining right and wrong for an individual or community, ethics relates to “the formal rationalization of morality.” Thus, ethics pertains to one’s inner view of what is right and wrong and our mode of action. Morality on the other hand “serves to restrain our purely self-interested desires” so that we can co-operate together (Shaw 1991, p.19). However, since moral interpretations of right and wrong vary between individuals within a society and are moreover continually transforming (see also Luedicke, Thompson and Giesler 2010) we would agree with Caruana (2007a, p.300) that it is necessary to view “morality in consumption as a process of social construction [which] will allow interpretations to absorb the various alternative strands of social meaning that appear relevant in people’s consumption practices.” Therefore, a useful framework to help explore the “process through which individuals or cultures come to view issues or behavior as possessing moral properties” is Lovett and Jordan’s (2010, p.177) model of moralization. Building on Rozin’s (1997) conceptualization of moralization, Lovett and Jordan (2010) advocate a ‘graduation-based’ descriptive model which comprises of four levels of moralization that could take place in any given situation (i.e. Level 0–simple preferences with no moralization, Level 1–preferences moralized for the self, Level 2–preferences moralized for the self and others and Level 3-public expression of moralization). Consequently, we argue that their model offers a constructive and nuanced perspective of moral sensitivity which will help to enrich our understanding of the role of moralization amongst pet owners and their consumption practices. Although no single theory can “claim to have the dynamics of consumption entirely pinned down” (Caruana 2007b,p. 210), a comprehensive framework that seeks to illuminate consumption from a constructivist perspective is Holt’s (1995) Typology of Consumption Practices. However, comprehensive though the framework is, it does not unequivocally acknowledge the moral dimensions of consumption. We would argue that this may well be a reflection of the fact that few studies focusing on consumption actually consider moral issues unless their focus is disposal and/ or ecological behaviors (Caruana 2007a; 2007b; Kwak et al. 2001; Luedicke et al. 2010). If we accept Wilk’s (2001) assertion that consumption is a moral matter, it follows perforce that in order to remain relevant to contemporary analyses of consumption Holt’s (1995) typology might be usefully extended so as to incorporate the moral dimensions of consumption. Accordingly, this paper examines the social construction of morality in the context of consumption practices associated with pet ownership in the UK. Hence, the contribution of this article is twofold; first, we develop and propose extending Holt’s (1995) typology of consumption practices to help align the fields of morality and consumer behavior research so as to describe consumption practices more fully. Second, we contribute to current knowledge regarding the role of morality and socio-cultural influences in relation to owners and their pets.