Mutuality

Abstract

The recently introduced construct of consumer sharing is represented as a nonreciprocal, prosocial distribution of resources given without expectation of reciprocity (Belk, 2010, 'Sharing', Journal of Consumer Research 36: 715-34). The approach adopted rests on shaky ontological and epistemological grounds and reproduces an array of problematic modernist dichotomies (e.g., agency/structure, nurturing family/instrumental public, gift/market, and altruism/self-interest) that significantly constrain the analytical enterprise. This work redresses some of the conceptual problems in the current formulation. The critique highlights a focus on resource distribution based on a more holistic, socially grounded perspective on circulation. We offer the alternative concept of mutuality or generalized exchange and the metaphor of inclusion rather than exchange as central to this perspective. We argue this may provide a more sound basis for understanding alternative modes of circulation.

Trust in sharing encounters among millennials

“…Sharing encounters are a special subclass of traditional service encounters in a variety of ways. First, sharing encounters take full advantage of contemporary online platforms and modern information technologies, such as smartphones, apps, and location-based services to provide individuals with information to enable an optimal use of resources through the mutualization-a type of social encounter system in which the benefits that an individual receives from others do not depend exclusively on the resources provided by that individual (Arnould & Rose, 2016;Hwang & Griffiths, 2017). Further, they are typically customer to customer (C2C), rather than business to consumer (B2C) (Hawlitschek, Teubner, & Weinhardt, 2016), and involve the temporary sharing of excess capacity (Mittendorf, 2017a;PricewaterhouseCoopers [PwC], 2015;Tussyadiah, 2015).…”

The Relationship between Access Practices and Economic Systems

“…We contribute to the debate on conceptualization of consumption circulation practices (Bardhi et al 2014;Arnould and Rose 2015). We highlight the distinction between market-mediated access practices, such as renting, and non-market-mediated access (i.e., sharing) practices.…”

“…Consumer researchers have started to explore the recent developments in the access economy especially with regard to consumer motivations and behavior (Hennig-Thurau, Henning, and Sattler 2007;Ozanne and Ballantine 2010;Lamberton and Rose 2012), consumer value and desire (Chen 2009), and associated resource distribution practices (Giesler 2006;Belk 2007Belk , 2010; Jenkins et al 2014;Arnould and Rose 2015). This line of research distinguishes access as a particular mode of resource distribution and consumption.…”

“…The self as depicted in the theoretical notion of sharing (Belk 2010) is a Western, individualistic self (Arnould and Rose 2015). Thus, in other parts of the world, where the sense of self is more interdependent, the dominant access practices may take the form of sharing.…”

“…While the recent boom of the access economy via digital technology is considered new and groundbreaking, we note that access practices have been foundational to society and the marketplace over many years (cf. Belk 2013;Arnould and Rose 2015), yet we have not to date seen a dimensionalizing and historicizing of these practices. Through a literature review from a variety of disciplines, we locate access practices as contextual, depending on the economic system in which they are embedded.…”