This recent ad for Norton Antivirus software reinforces the concept of lifestyle consumption as articulated by Mike Featherstone (1991) two decades ago. When I saw this commercial, it made me wonder how the trends of lifestyle consumption are fast changing as a result of the increasing digitization of consumer goods. At a time when our very identities seem to be wrapped up in the information we circulate (via Facebook, email, and the various other affordances our digital technology allows), this ad seems to push the concept of lifestyle consumption to a new extreme. And it epitomizes postmodern advertising in that it “educates and flatters at the same time” (Featherstone 1987).

So what is lifestyle consumption? It is part and parcel to the changing nature of late capitalism, in which consumer goods come to be valued not for their utility, but for their symbolism, for what they “say” out the consumer. In this way, consumer goods become signs through which we display our individuality (as exhibited through our “tastes” [see Bourdieu 1984]) in late capitalism. Featherstone states (p 86)

The modern individual within consumer culture is made conscious that he speaks not only with his clothes, but with his home, furnishings, decoration, car and other activities which are to be read and classified in terms of the presence and absence of taste. The preoccupation with customizing a lifestyle and a stylistic self-consciousness are not just to be found among the young and affluent; consumer culture publicity suggests that we all have room for self-improvement and self-expression whatever our age or class origins. This is the world of men and women who quest for the new and the latest in relationships and experiences, who have a sense of adventure and take risks to explore life’s options to the full, who are conscious they have only one life to live and must work hard to enjoy, experience, and express it (Winship 1983; Featherstone and Hepworth 1983).

Now I have no desire to rehash arguments about consumer culture and the logic of self-cultivation (see Featherstone 1982), but I do want to connect these trends to contemporary consumption practices and the need for “digital security” as a way to preserve the self. That is, in an era when the loss of information is equated with the loss of self (think of all the threats of “identity theft” we hear every day), what purpose do such arguments serve other than getting us to purchase more in order to protect our things, our identities, our information? That is, are the claims for digital security little more than facile arguments for the preservation of cultural capital (Bourdieu 1984)? If information is power and capitalism presupposes the smooth flow of information to operate, perhaps claims to “protect your information” are simply claims for the preservation of the economic system as is? Is digital security something that the “petit bourgeoisie” of the culture industry simply want for you because it boosts their sales (Featherstone 1991)?

The Norton Antivirus commercial above states, “Your stuff is more than just data, it is your life. The stuff that connects you with other people. That puts you on the grid as a contributing member of society. It’s who you are stuff. Where you’ve been, and where you’re going stuff.” It appears that Featherstone’s conceptualization of lifestyle consumption is somewhat lacking, as it does not give emphasis to the digital–those flows of information that are increasingly permitting contemporary mobility systems to operate (Urry 2007) and that are increasingly defining our very social selves (Mead 1913). At a time when, “to not have Facebook is to not exist”, how do calls for digital security serve the interests of contemporary capitalism, particularly the petit bourgeoisie of the culture industry?