X Close

Zola understood our lust for shopping 'The Ladies' Paradise' captures how consumerism was born

The BBC's the Paradise erased the power of Zola's novel

The BBC's the Paradise erased the power of Zola's novel


December 19, 2023   8 mins

The most fun I ever had spending money was during a shopping spree at a toy store. It was almost Hanukkah, which falls near my birthday, and my parents asked me what they should get me for both occasions. I told them I didn’t want them to pick things out for me, I wanted to pick things out for myself. I wanted to enact what I had seen on TV: children running gleefully through Toys R Us, grabbing this and that off the shelves. My parents were put out by the request: because it took place not on my sixth birthday, or my tenth, but rather my eighteenth.

I was not a child, they said: I shouldn’t be playing with toys. But they eventually relented, handing me the amount they would have spent on presents — $200 — and telling me I could do whatever I wanted with it. So off I set for my spree, taking my six-year-old sister with me. We circled around the store again and again, arrived at a provisional list, deliberated carefully over what might be substituted for what, mystifying the employees — upon whom it slowly dawned that the pile of toys growing on the counter was intended not for my sister but for me. I asked for each one to be wrapped individually.

I have such a vivid memory of this experience — the avaricious thrill of thinking that almost anything in the store could be mine, the absurd freedom to possess things of which I had absolutely no need — but I do not remember what I ended up buying. I cannot name even one toy I purchased that day, and I do not know whether any of them are still with me. It was on this day, on the eve of adulthood, that I approximated the ideal of consumerism, the frenzied mania that is the pure joy of shopping.

Much later, I read some books by social scientists that sought to explain this phenomenon. In his Theory of the Leisure Class, for instance, Thorstein Veblen explains that “conspicuous consumption” is a way of signalling that one is above engaging in productive labour: “A detailed examination of what passes in popular apprehension for elegant apparel will show that it is contrived at every point to convey the impression that the wearer does not habitually put forth any useful effort.” In The Affluent Society, Kenneth Galbraith lays out what he calls “the dependence effect”, which is that capitalism reverses the relationship between production and desire. Instead of producing things in order to satisfy people’s antecedent desires and needs, a wealthy capitalist society has an antecedent commitment to production, which means: “It accords to the producer the function both of making the goods and of making the desires for them.”

All of that made some sense to me, but I was unsatisfied, feeling that phrases such as “conspicuous consumption” and “dependence effect” obscured as much as they revealed. They didn’t explain the powerful drive that animated me in the toy store, versions of which I continue to feel to this day when I shop. But then I read a novel by Émile Zola.

The Ladies’ ParadiseAu Bonheur Des Dames — is named for the department store that is the novel’s true protagonist. It is described alternately as a monster, a machine, a colossus, a cathedral, and over the course of the novel it grows — in power and influence, in financial success, and in physical size, as it expands along the street to swallow up the small businesses that had flourished in the neighbourhood for generations. The fictional store and its fictional owner, Octave Mouret, are based, respectively, on Le Bon Marché, one of Paris’ first department stores, and the businessman Aristide Boucicaut, who grew a 3,000 square foot novelty shop with a handful of departments — buttons, lace, ribbons, umbrellas — into a 55,000 square foot colossus that sold everything. Zola carefully researched the business practices detailed in the novel: the replacement of haggling with fixed prices, the use of advertising, the introduction of returns and sales and discounts, the giant displays to encourage window-shopping, the routine rearrangement of the store to confuse customers into spending more time within its walls. The author’s journalistic eye for detail takes the reader back in time to watch something new coming into being — a new type of desire, a new set of human relationships, a new form of life. We witness the birth of shopping.

It is very hard not to be a moralist about capitalism. Veblen and Galbraith fall into the trap: one can hear the distaste in a phrase like “conspicuous consumption”. And these days, we are so accustomed to the word “capitalism” being followed by moralism that it comes as a shock to encounter Zola, who wants to talk to us about economic growth, about the lust for luxury goods, about the power of advertising and the many guises it can take, about the mannerisms of rich shoppers and the working conditions of the poor people who serve them — and yet doesn’t want to preach to us about any of those things. He wants to show you the splendours and the horrors of something; he wants to help you understand.

The novel is filled with lavish descriptions of stuff, ecstatic prose poems to fabric — silk, in particular — to colour — white, in particular — that awaken the reader’s own acquisitive impulses. These encomia are so compelling that I found myself thinking: wouldn’t it be nice to have those buttery soft gloves, that colourful parasol, some Alençon lace! And so, when one reaches the descriptions of the heated frenzy of the crowds that descend on the store to strip it of its wares like locusts, one doesn’t view these people from a refined, superior, judgmental distance; one locates oneself among the throng, having become, alongside it, one of the store’s fervent admirers.

But of all the novelists I have read, Zola is least likely to hide the ugly truth. He is brutally direct in showcasing the damage wrought by The Ladies’ Paradise. You are introduced to the artisanal work of the umbrella store owner, who carves handles into animal shapes by hand — only to be forced to watch him squeezed out of existence as Mouret’s shop surrounds him. In a different subplot, a generations-long tradition of handing a shop down from parents to children is suddenly and permanently severed, and you see the violent effect on all those whose lives were predicated on its continuation. One by one, such people try to “stand up to” Mouret; one by one, they fail. One person attempts suicide; a second wastes away from sheer sadness, which causes a third to waste away, too. Even those shopkeepers who escape the net of death manifest such a strong insistence on “going down with the ship” that one cannot help but conclude: their lives are over.

If we turn our attention inside the store, to those who “benefit” from its existence, the horrors are equally many. The saleswomen are trapped inside it, forced to eat the terrible food offered in the cafeteria and sleep in unheated rooms where they nearly freeze to death in winter; if they wish to leave, even on a day off, they need permission. These women had few employment alternatives, so apart from room and board they were at first only paid on commission, and lived in terror of being fired — turned out onto the street, with nowhere to go. The result is a cut-throat, competitive atmosphere among the sales force, which contrasts sharply with the atmosphere of the small family shops, where the good of one is the good of all. When it comes to the customers, Zola shows you how the store’s irresistible attractions inflame their greed, inducing them to spend more than they can afford, and driving even “respectable” women to shoplifting.

For all the suffering it causes, the Ladies’ Paradise is a place of passion, filled with energy. The people inside of it may be a bit crazed with the desperation to buy, or the desperation to sell, but they are noticeably alive, when juxtaposed with the surrounding neighbourhood, which reeks of darkness and decay. And this, in the end, is the sharpest contrast in the novel: between the lively, colourful world of the department store, and the stagnant and despondent world outside of it. As much as you empathise with the umbrella store owner, there is no question as to which way the future lies. What Zola showcases about capitalism is that it is a powerful source of optimism, of momentum; and that people, once they become wealthy enough to attend to something other than survival, need some such engine. The difficulty that he implicitly raises for any alternative to capitalism is not the usual one, about efficiency: how will the system be organised in such a way as to avoid poverty for all? It is instead a motivational difficulty: assuming it does avoid poverty for all, what will move and inspire and incite those people?

Zola wrote the kinds of novels critics love to trash, which is to say, the kinds of novels people actually enjoy: a contemporary journalist described him as “the most violently attacked and the most widely read author of his generation”. Zola understood that ordinary readers read for the plot: for romantic tensions, reversals of fortune, character-testing crises. The Ladies’ Paradise comes complete with a plucky heroine — and a will-they-or-won’t-they love story that keeps you turning the pages.

Nonetheless, all of that is secondary. Zola, who lived at the time when social science was beginning to come into its own as a field of research, could be described as the novelist who moonlit as a social scientist. This is why Havelock Ellis, a pioneer in the study of sexuality, wrote: “To look at Zola from the purely artistic standpoint is scarcely to see him at all.” When Zola is telling a story, he’s not only telling a story. While he has your attention, while you’re held in suspense over the heroine’s fate, you find yourself examining the inner workings of this colossus, this department store; you become captivated by its power. And slowly, over the course of the novel, you find yourself confronted by an uncomfortable thought.

The thought is precisely what the TV adaptation of the novel steers you carefully away from. The BBC’s attempt is remarkable chiefly for how systematically it erases the brutal truths that saturate Zola’s text. The store is a fraction of the size depicted in the novel; we never see frenzied crowds; there is no shoplifting, no seasonal firing of employees; no one is driven to purchases she cannot afford; apart from a few “bad seeds”, the employees are loyal and friendly to one another; and when the neighbourhood shops stand up to Mouret (here renamed “Moray”), they retain their dignity and achieve some measure of success. The show is set not in Zola’s rapidly changing world, but our fantasy of the time that preceded it.

We are living in the world Mouret made, but we don’t want to accept it. We like to imagine ourselves surrounded by hand-carved umbrella heads; we continue to find the image of that artisanal old world comfortable, appealing and familiar. In other words, we find the real world — the one we actually live in — somewhat terrifying and alien. We don’t have an intuitive understanding of capitalism, of the desires it creates in us, of the relationships it throws us into. We don’t understand why we like shopping, and often pretend that we don’t. We will come up with an excuse as to why we “have to” buy something. Dating profiles tell us that people love to travel, or read, or hike, never that they love to shop. When a hobby requires expensive gear, this often makes it secretly more appealing — a reason to shop! — not less. The fact that these secret urges are now driving the show: that is the uncomfortable thought.

For all the imaginative pleasure we take in the reassuring smallness of Moray’s shop, when it comes to actual shopping, we choose more and more of Mouret. After rejecting the small store in favour of the department store, we rejected the department store in favour of the shopping mall, and the mall in favour of Amazon. We willingly move deeper and deeper into a world that doesn’t feel like home, that maybe never will. And it is Zola who offers us a front row seat to the opening act of this drama, a chance to watch the new world rising from the ashes of the old, a chance to come to terms with the creatures that we have become.


Agnes Callard is Associate Professor of philosophy at the University of Chicago.

AgnesCallard

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

28 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Steve Murray
Steve Murray
10 months ago

Is there some kind of evolutionary effect at play here? I ask this since the participants in this shopping frenzy are females; not exclusively no doubt, but predominantly. Could that be the evolutionary desire – or necessity, more like – to undertake ‘gathering’, as in “hunting and gathering”? Those who were able to do so successfully were more likely to survive, along with their kin. If a superabundance of foodstuffs became available, perhaps on a seasonal basis, the impetus to gather would become an imperative, perhaps inducing a hormonal reaction.

Is what the author, and Zola, describe the continuation of this hormonally-driven imperative? The superabundance of the superstore driving an ancient need to fulfil a duty to one’s family, to one’s tribe; to oneself? The feelings described would certainly fit this narrative.

Last edited 10 months ago by Steve Murray
Claire D
Claire D
10 months ago
Reply to  Steve Murray

Interesting observation and highly likely I would have thought.

Martin Bollis
Martin Bollis
10 months ago
Reply to  Steve Murray

Interesting thought. I would imagine much female expenditure is on cosmetics, jewellery, clothes, hairdo’s – all things designed to increase attractiveness to a high status mate

Same concept of a hormonally driven imperative but with a slightly different root?

David Morley
David Morley
10 months ago
Reply to  Martin Bollis

And status to other women.

Steve Murray
Steve Murray
10 months ago
Reply to  Martin Bollis

Yes, good point.

David Morley
David Morley
10 months ago
Reply to  Steve Murray

Interesting idea, but would perhaps be more likely to drive women to the supermarket rather than the shopping mall. I think Martin is closer to the mark, but underestimates female status seeking. It is not limited to simply attracting a high status mate. It is also to establish their status with other women.

If we look at female consumption, it is largely based around improving appearance, holding back signs of ageing, emphasising sexual characteristics and displaying status. As women age, the emphasis changes. A young woman will happily wear a cheap frock if it is sexy and displays her body. An older woman will wear a more expensive frock which conveys status and does a reasonable job of hiding that she is physically not what she once was.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
10 months ago
Reply to  Steve Murray

wtf. Men and women both gathered. We all experience an acquisitiveness which has little if anything to do with hormones or seasons. We all generally experience a thrill at purchasing or obtaining something which can be explained by evolutionary impulses. Your ex post hormonal explanation is bizarre.
https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20150318-tame-your-inner-impulse-buyer
It’s obvious isn’t it? Those who had an innate incentive to gather and pick out good things survived. There is no reason to derive pleasure in shopping other than the fact that it all the people who weren’t bothered about it died. The same phenomena are at play when we game, gamble and use social media (or comment sections).

Steve Murray
Steve Murray
10 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

I wouldn’t take much, if any, credence from a BBC article, although it does explain your need to express yourself with “wtf”.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
10 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

The hoarding phenomenon cuts across gender lines equally. That’s a result of OCD and I think all shopping has an element of that.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
10 months ago
Reply to  Steve Murray

Women’s buying in the fashion and cosmetics industry is insane. They have made billionaires and multi-millionaires of so many. As a woman, I’m saddened and disgusted to see that women will spend so much money on an ugly-looking purse simply because it’s made by a designer. They have an obsessive need to impress others and designers capitalize on and exploit that need. I have given this much thought because not all women allow themselves to be victimized in this way. So what makes the difference? Personality type.

David Morley
David Morley
10 months ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

Executive function? Intelligence? Thoughtfulness? Narcissism? As you say, you’ve given it much thought – but most people don’t, they are carried along by the current. That in itself sets you apart a bit.

I don’t want to sound too moralistic, we all like nice things, and I realise I’m close to stereotyping certain women – but the obsession with designer goods etc does tend to go with other characteristics. Let’s just say, I doubt they are reading Martin Heidegger in their spare time.

Michelle Gaugy
Michelle Gaugy
10 months ago
Reply to  David Morley

Unless it’s shopping for something the man is interested in and wishes to buy – such as a car – or for those types, a gun. Then it can take hours. And hours. And hours. And David, fyi, there are really many many women who read Heidegger and the like. Even god help us, French philosophers, who also indulge in fashion. Truly.

J Bryant
J Bryant
10 months ago

That was an interesting and engaging essay, imo.
The question that really caught my eye was:
The difficulty that he implicitly raises for any alternative to capitalism is … instead a motivational difficulty: assuming it does avoid poverty for all, what will move and inspire and incite those people?
We live in an age that still pays lip service to capitalism, but its predominant goal seems to be deindustrialization, reducing living standards, pushing people to rely increasingly on the State for their living. So without the cut and thrust of capitalism, what will motivate future young people? The answer increasingly appears to be devotion to strange, invented cults, notably wokeism, and perhaps a return to tribalism and real conflict, not just the conflict of the marketplace. Political and economic theories might fall in and out of fashion, but human nature doesn’t change.

Last edited 10 months ago by J Bryant
David Morley
David Morley
10 months ago
Reply to  J Bryant

So without the cut and thrust of capitalism, what will motivate future young people?

And the answer is: shopping.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
10 months ago
Reply to  J Bryant

Exactly. Human nature doesn’t change.

Simon Neale
Simon Neale
10 months ago

Here’s another set of metaphors and flights of fancy surrounding the experience of shopping. Left to my own devices, I will treat it as a military exercise. Do I have to commit to the battle, or can it be put off and the problem solved by retreat or diplomacy? If not, establish clear objectives. What is needed, and how are they to be obtained with minimum damage to my own forces? Plan (bags, credit card, parking, travel times) and then a fast and surgical execution. Get in, buy the stuff, and get out before they know what’s hit them, taking as few casualties as possible.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
10 months ago
Reply to  Simon Neale

Funny, thanks for the chuckle.

David Morley
David Morley
10 months ago

What Zola (and Tolstoy) also noted was the extent to which consumerism is a female driven phenomena. Initially rich women, later almost all.

Should global warming really lay waste to the planet, and render life here impossible, I suggest that humanity’s final act should be the creation of a giant handbag in marble to act as a warning to any future alien visitors.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
10 months ago
Reply to  David Morley

No need. There will be plenty of men’s cars still lying around.

David Morley
David Morley
10 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

A good retort.

Though women seem to have caught the car bug too. Perhaps cars are the new handbag 🙂

Tyler Durden
Tyler Durden
10 months ago

An excellent piece about a wonderful writer who is not read enough today. I wonder if some of that is owing to his famous defence of the 19th French military figure Alfred Dreyfus who’s mistreatment exposed entrenched French anti-Semitism?

David Morley
David Morley
10 months ago
Reply to  Tyler Durden

I doubt most people even know of that.

Too much truth is my hunch. We prefer a prettier, less realistic view of the past.

David Morley
David Morley
10 months ago

When a hobby requires expensive gear, this often makes it secretly more appealing — a reason to shop! — not less

Which brings us right back to Veblen et al and a critique that the author has subtly edged us away from: that the “gear” must be expensive, that it must convey status, and that it must be unaffordable to the many. Indeed people are drawn to activities which are expensive, and eschew those that are cheap, precisely because of their exclusivity and the status they convey.

JR Hartley
JR Hartley
10 months ago
Reply to  David Morley

Men indulge in status shopping. But it tends to be “gear” not decoration. Watches, high-end cycling gear, “technical” sports apparel. Tools I feel are less demonstrative, instead creating the quiet satisfaction of owning the “best”. Japanese tenon saws, anything by Festool, that sort of thing.

David Morley
David Morley
10 months ago
Reply to  JR Hartley

To be honest we all do it to a degree. Though few men actually enjoy the act of shopping in the way women do.

laurence scaduto
laurence scaduto
10 months ago

A very good essay. It set me mind off on a tangent.
Being a bit of a hoarder, I once had a stoop sale, a yard sale for someone without a yard. I set up early and then mostly just sat and watched and chatted all day. I was impressed and very pleased at the simple joy and the fun that everyone was having. I never really thought of the social aspects of this “incitement” to shop.
Unfortunately, the bigger, more corporate and more online the experience gets the less social pleasure it provides. But that hasn’t reduced the urge to aquire things one bit.
By the way, I made a bundle!

Christopher Barclay
Christopher Barclay
10 months ago

What a surprise! The main purpose of the BBC’s drama department is to make the clothes people wore 200 or more years ago. There is also the question as to the likeness that the BBC in the world of media has to the department store that destroys its smaller competitors. No wonder the BBC sugar-coated the tale.

Cynthia W.
Cynthia W.
10 months ago

“the routine rearrangement of the store to confuse customers into spending more time within its walls”
They just did this at my local Walmart. My son works there, and he said the stock manager had a breakdown and quit.