ArticlePDF Available

Home Sweet Messy Home: Managing Symbolic Pollution

October 2014
Journal of Consumer Research 41(3)

DOI:10.1086/676922

Authors:

Delphine Dion

ESSEC - Ecole Supérieur des Sciences Economiques et Commerciales

Ouidade Sabri

Sorbonne Business School

Hanging up our coat, tidying our desk, classifying our books: What meanings do these mundane practices convey? Extending Mary Douglas’s work, this article investigates tidiness from the angle of symbolic pollution. Based on photo-elicitation, it shows that, similarly to symbolic pollution described at a macro-social level, tidiness depends on two conditions, namely, a set of classifications and the dangerous transgression of these classifications. However, at a micro-social level, individuals negotiate boundaries between classifications in order to cope with symbolic pollution. Consumers define their domestic classifications through a juxtaposition of micro-practices, which does not necessarily create a hierarchically ordered system but which enables these consumers to avoid anomalies and transgressions. Furthermore, respondents are willing to break tidiness rules on specific occasions because the danger-beliefs associated with transgression are context-dependent. This analysis of tidiness gives new insights into materiality, emphasizing the cultural meaning of ordering one’s possessions.

PROFILE OF INFORMANTS

…

Figures - uploaded by Delphine Dion

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Delphine Dion

Content may be subject to copyright.

565

!2014 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc. ●Vol. 41 ●October 2014

Home Sweet Messy Home: Managing

Symbolic Pollution

DELPHINE DION

OUIDADE SABRI

VALE

´RIE GUILLARD

Hanging up our coat, tidying our desk, classifying our books, what meanings do

these mundane practices convey? Extending Mary Douglas’s work, this article

investigates tidiness from the angle of symbolic pollution. Based on photo-elici-

tation, it shows that, similarly to symbolic pollution described at a macro-social

level, tidiness depends on two conditions, namely, a set of classiﬁcations and the

dangerous transgression of these classiﬁcations. However, at a micro-social level,

individuals negotiate boundaries between classiﬁcations in order to cope with sym-

bolic pollution. Consumers deﬁne their domestic classiﬁcations through a juxta-

position of micro-practices, which does not necessarily create a hierarchically or-

dered system but which enables these consumers to avoid anomalies and

transgressions. Furthermore, respondents are willing to break tidiness rules on

speciﬁc occasions because the danger-beliefs associated with transgression are

context-dependent. This analysis of tidiness gives new insights into materiality,

emphasizing the cultural meaning of ordering one’s possessions.

Hanging up our coat, sorting out papers on our desk,

classifying our books, storing our groceries in the

kitchen, why are these everyday and apparently normal

practices so important to study? What speciﬁc meanings

do these mundane daily activities convey? According to

Mary Douglas (1967), these ordinary practices deploy our

system of symbolic classiﬁcation, that is, the social as-

signment of things to their place. Putting things in their

place is more than placing them in a speciﬁc physical

Delphine Dion (dion.iae@univ-paris1.fr) is associate professor of mar-

keting, Sorbonne Business School, Paris. Ouidade Sabri (ouidade.sabri

@u-pec.fr) is professor of marketing, Paris-Est University, UPEC, Cre´teil,

France. Vale´rie Guillard (valerie.guillard@dauphine.fr) is associate pro-

fessor of marketing, University of Paris Dauphine, Paris. The authors thank

the JCR editorial team for their very helpful and insightful comments and

particularly the associate editor for his remarkable involvement and sug-

gestions. They would also like to thank Eric Arnould, Søren Askegaard,

and Barry Babin for their helpful feedback on earlier drafts of this article.

The authors wish to express their gratitude to the informants for sharing

their time and aspects of their home and of their domestic lives. They are

grateful for support provided by the Sorbonne Business School and the

DRM research center at Paris Dauphine University. Direct correspondence

to Delphine Dion.

Laura Peracchio served as editor and Kent Grayson served as associate

editor for this article.

Electronically published June 4, 2014

location (Bergesen 1978; Filiod 2003; Miller 2008). Ti-

dying substantiates cultural categories; it makes the concrete

cultural meaning that organizes the world visible. It is a

vital, tangible record of cultural meaning that is otherwise

intangible. “In chasing dirt, in papering, decorating, tidying,

we are not governed by anxiety to escape disease, but are

positively re-ordering our environment, making it conform

to an idea” (Douglas 1967, 24). Leaving aside questions of

hygiene, Douglas focuses on the symbolic and expressive

dimension of pollution (De Heusch 2007). Symbolic pol-

lution is whatever, within a given society, eludes or threatens

order. It emerges when things are “out of place,” violating

systems of classiﬁcation. What is “out of place” depends on

the nature of the social order inscribed in the scheme of

cultural categories and reﬂected in the way meaning is cre-

ated (Campkin and Cox 2007; Du¨rr and Jaffe 2010).

Focusing exclusively on macro-social dimensions, Doug-

las disregards the negotiation of culture at the micro level

(Du¨rr and Jaffe 2010). Her level of analysis leads her to

focus exclusively on the logic of groups, and she neglects

the role of individual practices. However, structures iden-

tiﬁed at a macro level are always in dialogue with the prac-

tices and improvisations identiﬁed at a micro level (Sewell

1992). Transferring Douglas’s analysis to a micro-social

level, the idea of “the right place for things” raises many

questions. What is the right place for things? Does every-

thing have a precise place? What happens when things are

566 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

out of place? Our aim is to extend the theory of symbolic

pollution, advanced by Douglas and explored by many oth-

ers, by studying expressions of symbolic pollution at a mi-

cro-social level. We want to get a deeper understanding of

the cultural meaning of symbolic pollution by analyzing the

role of mundane and everyday tidying practices. We inves-

tigate the meaning of the place of things and the way we

understand tidiness (in the right place) and untidiness (out

of place).

Based on photo-elicitation, we study how individuals ne-

gotiate the deﬁnition and transgression of tidiness rules at

home. We show that, similar to the symbolic pollution in

traditional societies described by Douglas, untidiness de-

pends on two conditions, classiﬁcation and the dangerous

transgression of classiﬁcation. However, our results show

that at a micro-social level, individuals negotiate the deﬁ-

nition and transgression of classiﬁcation through daily and

mundane actions that have many impacts on the perception

and management of pollution. First, we show that most do-

mestic classiﬁcations are not organized into a sequence of

hierarchically ordered and mutually exclusive categories.

Consumers negotiate boundaries between categories in order

to manage anomalies and the transgression of classiﬁcation

and consequently to cope with symbolic pollution. Second,

our study demonstrates that consumers tolerate many trans-

gressions because perceptions of danger are context-depen-

dent: thus, having many things out of place does not generate

pollution. It is not a question of contradicting classiﬁcation,

or things being out of their place, but of the meaning of

these transgressions.

This micro-social analysis of tidiness also provides new

insights into materiality, emphasizing the cultural meaning

of ordering one’s possessions. In studying materiality, we

argue that the focus should be not only on possessions but

also on the way consumers order their material environment

to create a meaningful and symbolically unpolluted envi-

ronment. Understanding these everyday practices helps us

to understand how consumers adapt the cultural rules to ﬁt

with their daily constraints and opportunities.

THEORETICAL AND CONTEXTUAL

BACKGROUND

We begin by de s c r i b i n g t h e co n te xt o f o u r st ud y, h i g h -

lighting how the tidiness norm has emerged and been dif-

fused. Then we present the literature on tidiness and focus

on the theory of symbolic pollution on which we base our

analysis.

Emergence and Diffusion of the Tidiness Norm

The nineteenth century, a period of industrialization and

urbanization in the Western world, led to the emergence of

a new social norm of cleanliness (Ashenburg 2008; Laer-

mans and Meulders 1999; Shove 2003; Woersdorfer 2010)

and tidiness (Cieraad 1999; Crook 2008; Edensor 2005).

Institutional power structures imposed dominant social and

cultural norms of cleanliness and tidiness on the private and

public physical spaces people occupied (Dibie 2000; Ger

and Yenicioglu 2004; Neves 2004; Saugeres 2000; Sjo¨din

2006). Cleanliness and tidiness were used as standards of

worth, separating the bourgeoisie from the working classes

(Laermans and Meulders 1999). Having a neat and tidy

home was perceived as a norm and yielded social recog-

nition (Baudrillard 1968; Munro and Madigan 1999). This

norm was transmitted through educational programs dedi-

cated to bourgeois young women, where they learned basic

female skills and good manners, and by means of books on

household management. For instance, the introduction to a

French book on household management published in 1861

speciﬁes that order is central to running a home:

This new manual of domestic management is destined for

young women who understand how incomplete this important

part of their education is. When a young woman takes account

of the varied and numerous attributions that are part of her

domestic domain, she will easily recognize that the only basis

for running a comfortable or even modest home well is order,

which is as necessary within a family as it is in society [la

seule base de la bonne administration d’un me´nage opulent

ou modeste c’est l’ordre, aussi ne´cessaire au sein d’une fam-

ille que d’une socie´te´]. (Beleze 1861/2011; for the full French

text, see sec. 1 of the online appendix)

Since that period, home decoration publications, TV pro-

grams, in-store furniture displays, and more recently websites

have proliferated, all conveying to consumers a vision of ideal

homes. In doing so they diffuse the normative vision of ti-

diness, showing the appropriate way to use, present, and order

household possessions (Arsel and Bean 2013; Cheung and

Ma 2005). One obvious example is the development of TV

shows such as Changing Rooms or the How Clean Is Your

House? broadcast in the United Kingdom from 2003 to 2009

and subsequently adapted and broadcast in 20 other countries.

The IKEA Catalog is another striking illustration, since more

than 220 million copies have been distributed worldwide.

Experts estimate that approximately a billion people get the

opportunity to look at the catalog, that is, more than one in

six of the Earth’s population (http://www.lemonde.fr/vous

/article/2013/07/25/ikea-la-mondialisation-vue-de-l-interieur

_3453536_3238.html).

In addition, the social norm of tidiness has been associated

with certain requisite visual effects, rooted in the standard

of furnishing and decoration of the bourgeois home interior

(Baudrillard 1968; Clarke 2001; Filiod 2003). Bourgeois

household decoration is guided by a set of rules and a rigid

aesthetic vision that is conveyed through manuals expressing

the art of good taste (Assouly 2008) and through home

decoration publications (Martens and Scott 2005). Through

these media and manuals, consumers learn how to combine

objects aesthetically to create a speciﬁc atmosphere and per-

sonality (Baudrillard 1968). This process of aesthetic nor-

malization has extended to the working and lower-middle

classes through magazines and popular exhibitions such as

the Ideal Home Exhibition featuring normative working-

class home furniture and decoration (Clarke 2001). Thus,

DION, SABRI, AND GUILLARD 567

the proliferation of home decoration media has created a

vision of the ideal home that, among other things, promotes

tidiness, and most of us accept unquestioningly that living

in a tidy house is desirable in itself (CrimethInc. 2000).

These media offer resources for the acquisition of everyday

practices for people by providing them with a recognizable

ordering of objects in space, by justifying preferences for

particular arrangements and types of objects, and by turning

these preferences and activities into rituals and habits (Arsel

and Bean 2013).

The tidiness norm has given rise to a vast array of services

and products. The number of home-organizers, closet-or-

ganizing systems, and home-organizing products like ac-

cordion ﬁles, label-makers, and plastic tubs increases each

year. This growth reﬂects and caters to the need to live in

aneatandtidyplace(Belk,Seo,andLi2007;Cheungand

Ma 2005). We tidy because an ever-increasing range of tech-

nologies and products make us believe that mess is dan-

gerous, and they promise us distance from it, playing upon

our individual and collective desires and anxieties (Forlizzi

2007; Shove 2003). For instance, IKEA reinforces the dan-

gers of living in messy places through humorous advertising

campaigns (see the 2013 “Living Together” video campaign

or the 2007 “Tidy Up” campaign. For instance, one video

features a women rummaging about in a washing basket

and eventually extracting her baby from it). In addition Ikea

proposes many solutions for rendering a home perfectly

organized and tidy. In its 2013 catalog, it dedicates over 32

pages to tidying solutions and insists on the beneﬁts of living

in a tidy house:

To us, being orga n i z e d m e a n s f e e ling good . K n o w i n g w here yo u

left your keys, or where to ﬁnd that vital bit of paperwork,

quickly. Imagine not having to stress about things like that? In

awellorganizedhome,dailylifegetseasier,whilesurroundings

look lovelier. Beautiful objects can take center stage in a glass-

door cabinet, with not-so-beautiful objects stowed behind solid

doors. So why not wave goodbye to chaos, and say hello to the

new order of things? (IKEA 2013, 23)

As IKEA expresses it, living in a tidy and well-organized

house is important for efﬁciency and for feeling good. It is

associated with a better quality of life. The focus is not on

the perception of moral danger, which presents untidiness

as socially threatening, but on perceptions of personal dan-

ger that link untidiness to a poor quality of life, to stress,

and to inefﬁciency.

In sum, marketing practices, combined with the devel-

opment of new businesses, products, and brands promoting

tidiness as a value, have reinforced the tidiness norm and

contributed to increasingly higher standards of household

cleanliness and tidiness (Martens and Scott 2005). As a

consequence, untidiness is associated with many social and

personal perceptions of danger. Many consumers accept

without dissent or doubt the vision of the ideal home pro-

moted by the media and marketing that makes us believe

that mess is dangerous (Campkin and Cox 2007; CrimethInc.

2000).

Untidiness

An initial stream of research on tidiness has attempted to

draw proﬁles of tidy and untidy people and the way others

perceive them. Researchers have investigated hoarding ob-

sessions (Bloch et al. 2008; Leckman et al. 1997) and per-

sonality judgments based on the way people tidy their desks

(Gosling et al. 2002; Morrow and McElroy 1981; Sitton

1984). They have also analyzed the need for order, trying

to understand differences between those who need order and

those who do not (Costa and McCrae 1992). They have

shown that when personal control is threatened, individuals

who need to control their environment set up boundaries in

their environment to regain control (Cutright 2012; Strube

and Werner 1984). Theses studies provide insight into un-

derstanding disposition and hoarding behavior (Guillard and

Pinson 2012; Maycroft 2009).

Asecondstreamofresearchhasfocusedontidinessprac-

tices in commercial settings, showing how untidiness im-

pacts buying behavior (Castro, Morales, and Nowlis 2013),

and in domestic settings such as the kitchen (Martens and

Scott 2005), children’s rooms (Stevenson and Prout 2013),

and the garage (Hirschman, Ruvio, and Belk 2012). They

have analyzed conﬂicts over space within a family or with

roommates and have shown how tidying practices are em-

bedded in collective and individual identity negotiation and

construction processes (Dowling 2008; Filiod 2003; Ste-

venson and Prout 2013; Welzer-Lang and Filiod 1992). Fol-

lowing de Certeau (1980); these authors have analyzed re-

sistance and submission strategies and tactics within a group

(families or domestic partners) through tidying practices.

Spatial arrangement is the result of a collective “bricolage”

that expresses personal and collective selves symbolically

(Filiod 2003). (Un)tidiness is used to mark and appropriate

one’s territory and express one’s identity (Nippert-Eng

1996; Tian and Belk 2005). Discourses and practices of

storage and clutter are also related to the social signiﬁcance

of the order (Baudrillard 1998) and the social construction

of the home (Cwerner and Metcalfe 2003). Untidiness makes

the expression of otherness or difference possible (Cwerner

and Metcalfe 2003; Filiod 2003; Mallett 2004). Untidiness

is accepted as an aesthetic standard but also as part of an

iterative spatiotemporal ordering of home and identity. It is

no longer opposed to tidiness and is a form of experience

in itself (Abrahamson and Freedman 2013; Filiod 2003).

In these two different streams of research, untidiness is

linked to personality and identity. Thus, the focus is on self-

expression, emphasizing how untidiness expresses an in-

dividual’s characteristics and mode of existence. Our goal

is to achieve a deeper understanding of the cultural meaning

of (un)tidiness by analyzing the place of things and the way

we understand the categories of tidy and untidy. We consider

untidiness from the angle of symbolic pollution, and we

base our analysis on Douglas’s Purity and Danger (1967).

According to Douglas, tidiness practices deploy our system

of symbolic classiﬁcation, that is, the social assignment of

things to their place. Tidying substantiates cultural catego-

ries; it makes the concrete cultural meaning that organizes

568 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

the world visible. It is a vital, tangible record of cultural

meaning that is otherwise intangible. We elaborate on her

theory in the following section.

Symbolic Pollution

Douglas’s Purity and Danger (1967) is the foremost

contribution to the anthropological understanding of pol-

lution. Douglas refuses functionalist analysis based on hy-

gienic or medical grounds. She shows that pollution is not

so much a question of hygiene or health but essentially a

question of symbolic disorder. Its meaning is latent rather

than apparent and is not immediately present (Gusﬁeld and

Michalowicz 1984). Drawing on Durkheim and Mauss’s

(1903) classiﬁcations theory and their description of the

classiﬁcation process, which consists of arranging things

in groups that are distinct from each other and separated

by clearly determined lines of demarcation, Douglas’s

analysis of pollution involves classifying, drawing, and

transgressing boundaries and margins (Du¨rr and Jaffe

2010). “Pollution is a violation of each society’s designated

boundaries” (Douglas 1967, 28), “it is a matter of out of

place” (36), and it is “likely to confuse or contradict cher-

ished classiﬁcations” (37).

Symbolic pollution develops when things that are “out of

place” violate cultural classiﬁcations (Neves 2004). Cultural

classiﬁcations play an essential role in the creation and per-

petuation of cultures and social units. They are the funda-

mental coordinates of meaning, representing how the world

is segmented into discrete, intelligible parcels and how these

parcels are organized into a larger coherent system (Cooper

and Oldenziel 1999; McCracken 1986). Therefore, symbolic

pollution is a cultural construct, existing in “the eye of the

beholder,” rather than a universal category (Douglas 1967,

24). Pollution is never a unique, isolated event; it implies

“two conditions: a set of ordered relations and a contraven-

tion of that order” (Douglas 1967, 48).

Even if Douglas emphasizes the nonuniversality of pol-

lution, she assumes the universality of the idea of order.

Basil Bernstein (1977) challenged Douglas’s analysis, ar-

guing that she overemphasized the universality of the idea

of order, and he made a plea for those who thrive in disorder

and feel no anxiety about mess. Taking the example of an

artist’s studio, where mess does not matter, Bernstein high-

lighted that people are not all equally orderly (Douglas

1970a). In the artist’s studio, many things are out of place,

but this does not arouse the revulsion response associated

with symbolic pollution (Meigs 1978). How can we account

for the fact that things out of their place do not create pol-

lution? To answer these critics, Douglas introduced the idea

of a typology of cultures: the grid-group model (Borneman

2010). The aim of her model was to check how differences

in social organization relate to differences in beliefs andvalues

(Douglas 1970b). In her later books, Douglas turned to the

study of cultural variation and social organizations (Douglas

1986, 1992).

To an s w e r B e rn st ei n’ s critiqu e , w e p ro po se t o change the

level of analysis and to move from the macro-social level

to the micro-social level. Because we focus on practices at

a higher level of granularity, we assume that we will get a

deeper understanding. Micro-social analyses generate un-

derstanding of social activities through daily and mundane

practices, which are essential for understanding the structure

and dynamics of societies (Askegaard and Linnet 2011; Des-

jeux 1999). Studying symbolic pollution in relation to local

contexts and practices is key to understanding the meaning

attributed to symbolic pollution (Ger and Yenicioglu 2004).

Focusing exclusively on macro-social dimensions, Douglas

fails to take into account the dynamic nature of culture as

aconstantlychangingprocessanddisregardsthenegotiation

of culture at the micro level (Du¨rr and Jaffe 2010; Edensor

2005). We argue that, at a micro-social level, individuals

negotiate the deﬁnition and transgression of classiﬁcation

through daily and mundane actions. This impacts on sym-

bolic pollution in numerous ways because it affects thestruc-

ture of classiﬁcation and the signiﬁcance of its transgression.

First, taxonomies, as described by Douglas, are exhaustive

and hierarchically ordered (Babadzan 1976; Chauvin 2006;

Neves 2004). Categories are organized into a hierarchically

ordered sequence and are also mutually exclusive; that is to

say, no object belongs to two classes at a time (Sperber

1975). Anomalies are symbolically separated from “normal”

elements through a different process in order to reinforce

the structure of the classiﬁcation system and the subsequent

social order (Douglas 1967). However, since classiﬁcations

are not taken for granted at a micro-social level but are built

through action, several logics may be juxtaposed. We argue

that classiﬁcations deﬁned through action are not mutually

exhaustive, so elements can ﬁt in several categories at the

same time without being considered anomalies and without

a speciﬁc place in the classiﬁcation. In sum, the position of

objects may not be precisely deﬁned or may not follow a

hierarchical logic, which raises many questions about the

right place for things.

Second, Douglas (1967) speciﬁes that cultural classiﬁ-

cations are preserved by the implementation of danger-

beliefs, prohibitions, and taboos. They prevent the social

proliferation of pollution and help to maintain social co-

hesion (Sabri, Manceau, and Pras 2011). Departure from

classiﬁcation threatens the stability provided by the social

order, and transgression is therefore regarded as wrong and

immoral (Du¨rr and Jaffe 2010). For instance, Douglas stud-

ies many moral danger-beliefs about food in the Lele com-

munity in Zaire. They protect the symbolic classiﬁcations

established in the animal world because they prevent indi-

viduals from transgressing them and consequently reinforce

the structure of the social community (Goodman, Douglas,

and Hull 1992). Studying pollution at a micro-social level,

we assert that danger-beliefs are linked not only to moral

and normative pressure but also to personal constraints and

issues. In a domestic setting, danger-beliefs are context-

dependent and so, in contrast with moral rules, tidiness

rules are not univocal. We argue that pollution is not only

aquestionofcontradictingclassiﬁcationbutalsoaquestion

of designating transgressions as pollution and the danger-

DION, SABRI, AND GUILLARD 569

beliefs associated with them. Many things are out of place

but only some elicit a response and are labeled as pollution.

It is not things being objectively out of place but our reaction

to their being out of place that generates their designation

as pollution.

Studying untidiness at home, we want to investigate these

two issues by analyzing how consumers deﬁne tidiness rules

that assign objects to speciﬁc places and what happens when

consumers transgress these rules. After a discussion of our

method, we turn to our ﬁndings.

METHOD

Photo-Elicitation: Data Collection and Analysis

In order to study untidiness, we used a photo-elicitation

technique that combines pictures taken by the respondents

themselves and nondirective interviews based on those pic-

tures (Dion 2007; Heisley and Levy 1991; Holbrook 2005).

Following Beilin’s method (2005), we ﬁrst asked 25 infor-

mants to take 10 photographs of their home: ﬁve pictures

of messy places and ﬁve of tidy places. We asked the in-

formants to take the photographs themselves, because they

were likely to photograph things that were meaningful for

them, while the researcher might focus on things that were

not necessarily signiﬁcant to the informants (Beilin 2005;

Dion, Sitz, and Re´my 2011; Wallendorf and Arnould 1991).

It seems key to ask informants to take the pictures them-

selves because symbolic pollution does not exist intrinsically

but in “the eye of the beholder” (Douglas 1967). For in-

stance, some informants gave us a picture of a general view

of the kitchen, while others focused on speciﬁc locations:

inside the fridge or speciﬁc drawers, in a tin, or behind the

kitchen door. This technique excludes information on culture

generated by external observers (records about culture) and

prefers recordings of the culture made by the informants

themselves (records of culture; Worth 1981).

We restri c t e d t h e s c o pe o f th e pi ct ur es t o t h e ho m e b e c a u se

(1) domestic pollution is a speciﬁc type of disorder at the

micro-social level of analysis (Abrahamson 2002; Douglas

1991), (2) home is the most important site for material culture

studies (Miller 2001), and (3) home is a mix of social and

private places. In order to capture various experiences, re-

spondents were given 2 weeks to take their photographs.

Thanks to this generous time period, they were able to collect

pictures in different situations, and most took pictures on

different days. We collected a great variety of images: all

around the home (bedrooms, kitchen, garage, dining room,

corridors, garden, bathroom, etc.), on weekends and on week-

days, in everyday situations and on special occasions, in spe-

ciﬁc conditions (working, cooking, etc.), and including other

family members (partner, parents, children, pets, etc.). We

collected a variety of pictures taken in the same room. A few

respondents even photographed the same room tidy and un-

tidy, which allowed us to study dynamics. This spatial, tem-

poral, and experiential diversity was central to our under-

standing of the experiences and practices of domestic tidiness

and untidiness.

Later, we conducted in-depth interviews with each infor-

mant in order to understand the places pictured and the

informant’s tidying practices (Collier and Collier 1986; Dion

2007). Interviews were organized on a categorization pro-

cess (Beilin 2005; Heisley and Levy 1991): ﬁrst, informants

had to label the place (as tidy or untidy), and then they had

to explain why they had labeled it that way. This process

rooted the interviews in concrete experiences and gave in-

formants a frame for narration of their experiences and feel-

ings (Heisley and Levy 1991; Holbrook 2005). By embed-

ding interviews into concrete experiences, we generated

“cultural talk,” that is, we got people to talk about cultural

practices through which meaning is produced, contested, and

negotiated (Moisander, Valtonen, and Hirsto 2009). Com-

pared to interviews in live situations, these focus the dis-

cussion on speciﬁc elements that are visible in the image.

It thus allows us to concentrate on speciﬁc elements, but it

could lead us to miss other elements not featured in the

pictures. The researcher is dependent on elements he can

see in the images and thus has limited opportunities to lead

the discussion. We ended the interview by asking a few

general questions about tidying and the way in which in-

formants could deﬁne themselves according to tidiness prac-

tices. Based on the informant’s answers, we categorized him/

her as messy, tidy, or moderate. We did this at the end of

the interview because we wanted the interview itself to focus

on the image, eliciting respondents’ perceptions of their ti-

dying practices. We wanted to avoid people labeling them-

selves (tidy/messy) at the beginning of the interview and

then rationalizing their behavior in relation to this self-

labeling (Becker 1985). The interviews lasted 1–2 hours.

This two-step data collection (ﬁeld image taken by the

informants followed by interviews about their own photos)

enabled us to obtain descriptions of practices, experiences,

and beliefs that were meaningful for respondents from their

own perspective (Hirsch 2007). That way we moved away

from an etic perspective (an essentially external point of

view) toward an emic perspective (internal viewpoint; Agar

2011). This data collection process was also important for

managing social desirability, which is a key issue when

dealing with untidiness. Talking about untidiness is not a

socially neutral experience because it is embedded in dom-

inant value systems and social boundaries (Shove 2003).

However, it would seem that the effect of social desirability

is limited insofar as we asked respondents to take ﬁve photos

of tidy and untidy places, that is, of both socially desirable

and undesirable situations. Besides this, when we examined

the photos, we noticed that respondents sent us photos of

places that were extremely messy. They also gave us photos

of private and personal places and of objects that are not

usually accessible to visitors, such as inside bedside tables

or in underwear closets.

The sample was constructed progressively. Twenty-ﬁve

respondents were selected on the basis of our theoretical

concerns (Yin 1990). Our objective was to recruit respon-

dents with varied positions on untidiness, allowing us to

access different perceptions and experiences. The inclusion

570 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

TABLE 1

PROFILE OF INFORMANTS

Name Occupation Age Marital status Location

Self-deﬁned level of

tidiness

Ame´ lie Management assistant 39 Married, two children

(5, 3)

60 m

ﬂat, Paris

suburb

Moderate

Arthur Retired 65 Widower, with a part-

ner living in Italy

200 m

house, Paris

suburb

Tidy

Be´ atrice Product manager 38 Married, two children

(9, 5)

97 m

ﬂat, Paris Moderate

Bertille Retired 56 Married, three kids (not

living at home)

250 m

house, Paris

suburb

Moderate

Charles Unemployed 26 Single, a roommate

(26)

50 m

ﬂat, Paris Messy

Christine Product manager 33 Married, two children

(7, 4)

210 m

house, Paris

suburb

Moderate

Claudine Professor 32 Married 80 m

ﬂat, Paris Moderate

De´ borah Associate professor 38 Partner, four children

(17, 12, 12, 10)

138 m

ﬂat, Paris Moderate

Elise Assistant 39 Married, one child (2) 80 m

ﬂat, Paris Moderate

Esther Student 26 Single, a partner living

in another ﬂat

42 m

ﬂat, Paris Moderate

Etienne Teacher 43 Married, one child (13) 130 m

ﬂat, Paris Moderate

Georges Farmer 62 Married 400 m

house,

countryside

Messy

Gislaine Professor 42 Married, three children

(10, 8, 4)

125 m

ﬂat, Paris Tidy

Hassna Student 26 Single 20 m

ﬂat, Paris Moderate

He´ le` na RH manager 28 Single, a partner living

in another ﬂat

30 m

ﬂat, Paris Messy

Laura Student 19 Single, living in her fa-

ther’s house

200 m

house,

countryside

Messy

Marcel Retired 64 Married, two children

not living at home

300 m

house,

countryside

Tidy

Maria Associate professor 33 Partner, no children 60 m

ﬂat, Paris Messy

Marie CEO 62 Married, two children

not living at home

300 m

house,

countryside

Tidy

Martin Marketing consultant 55 Married, two children

(19, 19)

180 m

house, Paris

suburb

Tidy

Nathalie Product manager 34 Married, three children

(10, 5, 3)

200 m

ﬂat, Paris

suburb

Messy

Nicole Associate director 33 Married, two children

(6, 2)

105 m

ﬂat, Paris

suburb

Moderate

Noe¨ l Engineer 42 Married 90 m

ﬂat, Paris Messy

Pauline Secretary 50 Married 120 m

ﬂat, Paris

suburb

Moderate

Sonia Technical sales

representative

38 Married, two children

(5, 3)

105 m

house, Paris

suburb

Moderate

of extreme cases (very messy and verytidyinformants)

helped us to establish the boundaries of our ﬁndings and

provided a more nuanced understanding of the mechanisms

at work (Creswell 1998). We also introduced sociodemo-

graphic diversity in terms of age, occupation, gender, marital

status (single, childless couple, and couple with children),

and living environment (from a 20 square meter ﬂat to a

300 square meter house in Paris, Paris suburbs, and the

countryside; see table 1 for descriptions of the informants).

We restr i c t e d o u r data col l e c t i o n t o F r en ch r es po nd en ts i n

order to keep the cultural environment homogeneous. We

interviewed only one person from each home because it was

not our goal to study familial relationships and identity is-

sues linked to tidiness, such as has been done in previous

research (see, e.g., Filiod 2003; Munro and Madigan 1999;

Pastinelli 2005; Welzer-Lang and Filiod 1992).

To start w i t h , w e d i d n o t a n al yz e th e p i c tu re s pe r s e bec a u s e

they represented the respondents’ personal and subjective vi-

DION, SABRI, AND GUILLARD 571

sion of tidiness, and so the informants themselves necessarily

had to interpret them (Worth 1981). This allowed us to un-

derstand the meaning of situations and practices from the point

of view of the informants (Schroeder 2002). Therefore, we

analyzed the narrative accounts collected during the inter-

views about the pictures, using an inductive coding. The codes

were not deﬁned from the literature but determined during

our analysis according to the meaning of the verbatim ac-

counts (Arnould and Wallendorf 1994). This coding meant

that we could respect the emic dimension. Narratives were

analyzed on a comparative basis (Bertaux 2010) and sub-

mitted to triangulation among the researchers (Belk, Wallen-

dorf, and Sherry 1989). The comparative analysis started by

tracking the main themes tackled in each narrative. Each re-

searcher carried out categorizations, grouping the indexed

themes within a common set of categories. Cross validation

then enabled us to compare the narratives in order to identify

recurrent situations and similar logics of behavior (Hirschman

and Holbrook 1992). We progressively elaborated an accurate

and rich understanding. Each researcher’s analysis was com-

pared with the others’ to obtain a shared understanding

(Goulding 1999).

Unlike classic observation, methodologies based on photos

allow researchers to analyze images as often as they wish

(Dion 2007). Thus, after analyzing the narratives, we went

back to the images and analyzed them ourselves using the

interpretative frames provided by our informants (Schroeder

2002) and our theoretical lens. We tried to identify elements

that were inconsistent with our ﬁrst analysis, elements that

we could not understand from our ﬁrst analysis, and elements

that needed further investigation. We identiﬁed six intriguing

pictures and contacted the informants involved to ask them

speciﬁc questions about their pictures. For instance, we came

back to Marcel with the photo of his wine cellar (ﬁg. 5) and

asked him questions about the gaps we could see in his wine

racks, something that he had not mentioned in the ﬁrst in-

terview but that we found interesting to investigate further.

This second set of interviews, which lasted 30–45 minutes,

helped us gain a deeper understanding of tidying practices.

This second round of data collection, combined with a fresh

literature review, allowed us to propose a reﬁned theoretical

analysis.

Representation across Languages: Translating

Narratives into English

As the interviews were conducted in French, we faced the

issue of translating the narratives into English. This was an

important challenge because the two languages do not have

precise equivalents for each other’s idiomatic expressions

(Churchill 2005). This was especially signiﬁcant when dealing

with subtle distinctions between concepts like pollution or

untidiness (Glasse 1969; Liberski 1989). The vocabulary

about untidiness is very rich in both language and uses lots

of synonyms with different etymological roots and meanings.

For instance, our informants used the following French words

to account for domestic untidiness: de´sordre, de´rangement,

non range´, de´sorganise´, non organise´, chamboulement, ba-

zar, souk, foutoir, bordel, fatras, fouillis, chantier, pagaille,

chaos, capharnau¨m, binz, tohu-bohu. All these words can be

translated in English by the word “mess,” which does not

account for the subtle differences in meaning of the French

idiomatic expressions. As an illustration, the word bordel

referred originally to brothels, and it became a pejorative

and popular word to describe a very messy place; the word

chantier means a building site; the words souk and bazar

refer to the commercial district of Arabic cities where there

is a profusion of mixed elements, and so forth. Words have

also different levels in describing a messy situation: words

such as de´ rangement or de´sordre are not particularly strong,

whereas words such as fatras or foutoir indicate dreadful

mess.

To deal w i t h t h e s e d i fﬁ cu lt ie s, w e ﬁr st a s ke d a pr o f e s-

sional translator to translate the narratives, and we then for-

eignized translations (Temple 2006; Venuti 1995). Profes-

sional translators are unaware of the situational context and

tend to present a domesticated translation, that is, a trans-

lation shaped to ﬁt the reader better (Agar 2011; Sturge

1997). Domesticated translations present the reader with a

translation that reads well but does not accurately represent

meaning and intent (Churchill 2005; Mu¨ller 2007). There-

fore, we foreignized translations, that is, we shaped the trans-

lation to ﬁt the informants’ meaning better using our un-

derstanding of the informants and the contexts (Temple

2006; Venuti 1995). These foreignized translations are in a

less Anglo-Saxon style and are closer to the original French

sentences.

Furthermore, we kept several native terms as markers of

difference in the target language text (Liberski 1989; Temple

2006). This technique, called holus-bolus, is used to deal

with the untranslatability of a certain expression (Mu¨ ller

2007). It avoids the all-too-easy identiﬁcation of expressions

in the target language with preformed concepts and resists

premature categorization (Temple 2006). For instance, when

describing a mess hidden behind a door or a curtain, several

informants used the expression un cache mise` re, which one

professional translator rendered in as apresentableouter

garment.WhereastheFrenchexpressionoutlinestheidea

of hiding something terrible, the English version stresses

the idea of making something look presentable. Therefore,

we preferred to keep the French expression followed by a

literal translation such as un cache mise`re [a hiding misery].

We decide d t o e x t e nd th i s p r a c t i c e to i nc lu de t he o r ig in al

French transcription of phrases or sentences that we felt

could not be completely captured by the English translation.

We post in an online appendix the full verbatims used in

the article in both English and French.

RESULTS

Douglas holds ﬁrm to the view that pollution practices

in modern and traditional societies serve the same functions:

“Our ideas of dirt also express symbolic systems and the

difference between pollution behavior is only a matter of

detail” (Douglas 1967, 57). However, because Douglas fo-

572 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

FIGURE 1

ELISE’S FRIDGE

cuses mostly on data collected in nonmodernized cultures,

she does not provide a convincing defense of this view.

Consequently, in the ﬁrst section, we demonstrate that do-

mestic untidiness is a form of symbolic pollution. We show

that, similarly to the symbolic pollution in traditional so-

cieties that Douglas described, untidiness follows two con-

ditions, classiﬁcation and dangerous transgression of clas-

siﬁcation. After demonstrating that untidiness, as deﬁned by

our informants, follows the same general principles as sym-

bolic pollution, as deﬁned by Douglas, we look more deeply

at the two key conditions of the symbolic pollution theory

in order to investigate symbolic pollution at a micro-social

level.

Untidiness as a Form of Symbolic Pollution

When they talk about tidiness and untidiness, all our in-

formants evoke categories of objects and boundaries be-

tween categories that they have created. For instance, com-

menting on the photo of her fridge (ﬁg. 1), informant Elise

explains the way she tidies it. She stresses the importance

of categories and borders:

That there, that’s the fridge. For me, the fridge is tidy because

there are . . . because things are in their place. The vegetables

are in the vegetable rack. It’s organized. In fact the older

vegetables are on one side and the fresher vegetables are on

the other. All the cheeses are also in the cheese drawer. Oth-

erwise there’s nothing lying around, or open. . . . Things

are tidied away in boxes, the grated carrots are in a Tupper-

ware, the chocolate mousse is in a bowl but it’s covered with

plastic ﬁlm. You don’t have the impression . . . well, when

you’re looking for something, you spot it immediately: the

yogurts are all in the same place. It’s relatively very tidy

[C’est relativement bien range´ ]. (See the online appendix,

sec. 2.)

In accordance with Douglas’s analysis, Elise insists on the

fact that objects are assigned to classes of similar products.

These categories are based on different logics that form Elise’s

cherished classiﬁcation system: type of product (e.g., yogurts,

cheese, vegetables) and characteristics of products (e.g., fresh-

ness). Elise also highlights the importance of borders that

allow her to make clear distinctions between categories of

objects. She uses several kinds of elements to delineate clas-

siﬁcations and to create physical borders between classes of

objects. She delineates physical borders between products to

substantiate categories, for example, to make them visible and

concrete. She also sets up invisible borders between classes

of objects, placing them in speciﬁc locations (e.g., old veg-

etables on one side and fresh vegetables on the other). There-

fore, she assigns her possessions to speciﬁc categories, which

are delineated by physical or virtual borders. All our infor-

mants evoke categories and borders in the same way when

they talk about tidiness. Their tidying practices express their

symbolic systems and make visible and concrete the meaning

that organizes their environment.

Further, informants deﬁne mess as a contradiction of their

classiﬁcation system, when categories are not clear-cut and

objects are in their wrong category. For instance, Elise com-

menting on a messy kitchen drawer (ﬁg. 2), emphasizes the

transgression of categories and the lack of classiﬁcations

and borders between elements:

That, that’s a part of the kitchen. It’s a cupboard with three

shelves: at the bottom is the oil, in the middle there’s kitchen

foil and bags, . . . and there, that’s the middle drawer. You

can see that it’s disorganized. I know what’s in there: dried

fruits, biscuits. . . . But, well, OK you can see that stuff has

been opened: a packet of chewing gum, apacketofsweets,

a packet of biscuits while biscuits are in another place. At

ﬁrst sight there’s no logic to it, and it’s not easy to ﬁnd what

you’re looking for. So, for me, it’s not tidy. [A premie`re vue,

on ne voit pas de logique et ce n’est pas e´ vident de trouver

ce qu’on cherche. Donc pour moi, ce n’est pas range´.] (See

the online appendix, sec. 3.)

Elise highlights that products are mixed with no apparent logic

and they contradict her sense of order. Whereas other drawers

are well identiﬁed (e.g., the oil drawer), in the middle drawer

products belonging to different categories are mixed (e.g.,

chewing-gum, biscuits, dried fruits, sweets). She also speciﬁes

that products are open and that some of them (biscuits) should

be in another drawer. Therefore, unlike her fridge, where

classiﬁcations are logically deﬁned and borders are clear-cut,

DION, SABRI, AND GUILLARD 573

FIGURE 2

ELISE’S KITCHEN DRAWER

Elise highlights the lack of classiﬁcation and precise borders

between elements in the drawer. In accordance with Douglas’s

analysis of symbolic pollution, things are “out of place,” con-

tradicting Elise’s sense of order. All our informants evoke

these ideas of transgressing boundaries between categories of

objects and objects in the wrong categories.

In addition, many informants view untidiness as trans-

mitting danger, as in Douglas’s analysis of pollution. Ame´lie

stresses how untidiness threatens her. She was ashamed be-

cause the disorder in her kitchen revealed by her sister-in-

law affects her identity as a wife:

Once my sister-in-law came to stay for a few days. I left her

on her own at home one morning. When I came back, I

noticed she had tidied my kitchen cupboards, and washed

them. I was ashamed because she’d really made me face up

to reality: that my tidying-up is superﬁcial [mon rangement

est superﬁciel] and therefore, I’m a superﬁcial person. I can

tell you I felt pathetic. Obviously, I thanked her, but without

letting it show that I was hurt that someone had told me

implicitly that my home was untidy. I think that’s why I

don’t like people coming around unexpectedly. I don’t want

anyone to say that I’m a disorganized person [une personne

de´sorganise´e] and that I can’t run my own home. I always

want to be the best, to be irreproachable, especially in front

of my in-laws. I want to show my mother-in-law that her son

has made a good choice: that he has a loving wife who knows

how to reconcile work and running a home. I want to project

a faultless image, and that’s reﬂected in the running of the

house. I can see very well how my mother or my brothers

judge women who are slatternly and who don’t know how

to keep house. I wouldn’t like to be like them. [Je vois tre`s

bien comment ma me`re ou mes fre`res jugent les femmes qui

sont sales et ne savent pas tenir leur foyer. Je ne voudrais

pas eˆtre de celles-la` .] (See the online appendix, sec. 4.)

Like Ame´lie, other informants emphasize the social dan-

gers linked to untidiness. They stress the negative image

they give of themselves when their house is untidy (e.g.,

being a bad wife, badly organized, a nonloving wife and

mother). Doing so, they conform to the vision of the ideal

home promoted by media and marketing that makes us be-

lieve that mess is dangerous (CrimethInc. 2000; Shove

2003). Untidiness threatens our identity and in particular a

wife’s identity. This threat becomes salient when the person

feels shame, as it is a key affective response to social eval-

uative threat (Dickerson, Gruenewald, and Kemeny 2004).

The experience of shame denotes the situation that has nur-

tured it and questions the sustainability of the self’s social

inclusion and acceptance (Dickerson et al. 2004). This ech-

oes Douglas’s analysis of symbolic pollution in traditional

societies in which transgression is regarded as wrong and

immoral and associated with many danger-beliefs (Du¨rr and

Jaffe 2010; Ger and Yenicioglu 2004; Martens and Scott

2005). The danger-beliefs attached to pollution act as a

means of enforcing conformity (Douglas 1999).

In sum, our results conﬁrm that domestic untidiness shares

the same characteristics as symbolic pollution. They cor-

roborate the importance of symbolic classiﬁcation systems

that set up places for objects and deﬁne borders between

categories of objects. Tidying substantiates symbolic cate-

gories; for example, it makes the cultural meaning that or-

ganizes the domestic environment visible and concrete. In

accordance with Douglas’s analysis, we show that symbolic

pollution emerges when objects are out of place and trans-

gress symbolic categories. Our results also highlight social

danger-beliefs associated with untidiness. Therefore, it

seems that both the macro-social and the micro-social sys-

tems are based on the same conditions—classiﬁcation and

dangerous transgressions of classiﬁcation. Tidying rein-

forces both the structure of social reality and the subsequent

moral order that is infused into our structuring of reality by

categories and classiﬁcations. However, because we focus

on practices at a higher level of granularity, we have the

opportunity to analyze how individuals navigate socially

constructed views of tidiness (Collignon and Staszak 2004;

Filiod 2003). Our results show that, at a micro-social level,

individuals negotiate the deﬁnition of classiﬁcation and

transgression through daily, mundane actions and this has

a great deal of impact on the perception and management

of symbolic pollution.

574 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

FIGURE 3

MARIE’S HALLWAY

Logics of Classiﬁcation

Following Durkheim and Mauss (1903), Douglas refers

to well-structured and hierarchical classiﬁcation systems

based on univocal rules (Babadzan 1976; Chauvin 2006).

However, our data on pollution at a micro-social level show

that informants base their classiﬁcations on multiple logics

that might overlap and create incoherent classiﬁcations at a

general level. Further, consumers deﬁne categories with in-

consistent precision, taking into account single, small groups

or larger groups of objects. These two characteristics, mul-

tiplicity and precision of classiﬁcation rules, have several

impacts on symbolic pollution.

The Multiplicity and Juxtaposition of Classiﬁcation Rules.

Douglas focuses on the cultural grounds for classiﬁcation.

The determination of places for things depends on the nature

of the social order as inscribed in the scheme of cultural

categories (Douglas 1967; Hetherington 2004; Woersdorfer

2010). Similarly, cultural classiﬁcations are prominent when

informants talk about tidiness and untidiness. For instance,

informant Sonia explains that mess undermines the estab-

lished and internalized cultural classiﬁcation of where things

have to be:

It’s not very tidy when objects, things are where they

shouldn’t be, for instance, a drill in the kitchen, piles of papers

or books, paperwork that piles up. After a week or two, it

makes for a huge pile of stuff. People don’t live on their

own. Things in their right place allow someone who isn’t

part of the family to ﬁnd them, because it’s logical. It’s logical

to have knives in the kitchen, towels in the bathroom. (See

the online appendix, sec. 5.)

Informant Sonia reproduces the appropriate cultural con-

struction of the home that assigns speciﬁc home-space func-

tions (Dibie 2000; Mallett 2004; Munro and Madigan 1999).

This vision echoes Bourdieu’s (1971) analysis of the Kabyle

house, in which he described the cultural oppositions that

structure Kabyle houses: the distinctions between indoor and

outdoor spaces, genders, and humans and animals. These

cultural classiﬁcations help to structure the home and to

order domestic objects (Filiod 2003; McCracken 1986).

They deﬁne general rules concerning the places for things:

washing products in the bathroom, cooking utensils in the

kitchen, and so on. These rules are univocal, unambiguous,

and shared by all, like other cultural phenomena (Wallendorf

and Arnould 1991). As Sonia explains, it is logical to have

knives in the kitchen and towels in the bathroom. In addition

to these univocal rules, informants integrate their personal

considerations with the cultural taxonomy. Consequently, an

overlap of cultural logics is acquired through socialization

and a personal sense gained through experience.

As informant Marie explains in her comments on the

photo of her hallway (ﬁg. 3), these personal classiﬁcation

logics may seem arbitrary and may be contingent on the

outside observer:

This is a photo of the hallway. There are lots of things on

the hall table. It might seem disorganized, but it isn’t, because

the objects have been intentionally arranged that way. [C¸a

DION, SABRI, AND GUILLARD 575

peut paraıˆtre de´sordonne´, mais cela ne l’est pas car les objets

sont volontairement dispose´s de cette fac¸on.] Each grandchild

has two photos. We have two photos of each grandchild and

one photo of our children when they were small. There’s

always a note pad and a pencil near the telephone, for taking

messages. What could seem to be an orderless accumulation

of stuff isn’t for me. In a way, it’s organized. . . . [Ce qui

pourrait apparaıˆtre comme une accumulation de´ sordonne´e de

choses ne l’est pas pour moi. C’est d’une certaine fac¸ on de

l’organise´.] You know, I was just saying to myself that I have

only taken examples from inside the house. And in fact I

could also have talked about the inside of my handbag. In

my bag I have a sort of huge bag in which there are lots of

things which might well be useless: the instruction booklet

for my telephone, a map of Paris . . . photos. . . . [erm]

. . . envelopes, visiting cards, telephone numbers for the

ofﬁce. What else have I got? I’ve got . . . What’s in there?

Pencils, highlighters, . . . [erm] . . . my fountain pen, ink

cartridges, stamps. . . . What else have I got? All my loyalty

cards for different shops, my checkbook, luncheon vouchers.

It’s huge, wow! It’s really large and heavy. And besides that

I’ve also got a very big diary. This pocket inside my handbag,

it seems to be full of disorder and full of useless stuff. . . .

[Cette poche dans mon sac, elle parait pleine de de´ sordre et

pleine de choses inutiles. . . . .] Oh yes, I’ve also got a make-

up bag, medicines, and a sewing kit. . . . Well, as far as I’m

concerned, it’s tidy. But I think if anyone else opened my

bag they would never lay their hands on anything. [Et bien,

pour moi, c’est range´. Mais je pense que si quelqu’un d’autre

devrait ouvrir mon sac a` main, il ne trouverait pas grand-

chose.] (See the online appendix, sec. 6.)

Marie is aware that people could think that her hallway table

or her handbag is untidy, but she explains that, according

to her standards, it is not. She explains the logic of her

tidying in her hallway. There are precise rules for objects,

that is, the number of objects that strike a balance or a sense

of justice (two pictures of each grandchild and one of each

of their children) and their use (the pen and the note paper

near the telephone). Setting up these rules and respecting

them makes her console perfectly tidy according to Marie’s

classiﬁcation logics. Similarly, she emphasizes that her

handbag could look messy because there are many objects

that could be seen as useless and superﬂuous. However, it

is tidy for her because it is their place, and she knows how

to ﬁnd them. It shows the contingent and reﬂexive nature

of classiﬁcation systems. Since classiﬁcation logics are per-

sonalized, classiﬁcation systems differ from one person to

another, and some see pollution where others do not.

In our data, we have highlighted many different logics to

classify objects. Most of the time, informants deﬁne simi-

larity between objects according to their nature (e.g., cookies

with cookies, hammers with hammers, lipsticks with lip-

sticks). Consumers also classify their objects by their size,

their color, their shape, their use, their owner, and so forth.

These multiple logics, which are not necessarily coherent,

juxtapose and create complex classiﬁcation systems that may

not have a logic at the global level. This is the situation

informant De´borah faces when tiding her books (ﬁg. 4):

De´borah: This is my librar y. I say “my” because they are

my novels. They are well arranged. . . . . [Ils sont bien

range´s.] Before I used to arrange them in alphabetical order.

I used to love looking at my books and remembering the

stories and the characters. The problem is that arrangement

by alphabetical order is unsightly, there’s a mixture of colors,

heights, depths. . . . So I changed the organization. [Le prob-

le`me, c’est qu’un rangement par ordre alphabe´tique, c’est tre`s

moche: me´lange de couleurs, de hauteurs, de profondeurs.

. . . Alors, j’ai change´ le mode de rangement.] Now the

books are generally arranged according to color and within

each color they’re done according to the collection and within

each collection they’re done by author. OK . . . it seems an

illiterate thing to sort your books by color, but I ﬁnd it more

pleasing, more harmonious . . . from the point of view of

shapes and colors. The problem is that it’s not easy to ﬁnd

a book. When I’m looking for a book I have to remember

its color. . . . But, well, I don’t look that often. . . . OK,

from another point of view, I really like this completely un-

usual organization [Bon, d’un autre coˆ te´, j’aime bien ce ran-

gement comple`tement insolite] which brings together authors

that otherwise would never ﬁnd themselves side by side. In

the photo you can see that it makes a very nice line.

Interviewer (second interview):Last time, you showed me

this picture [ﬁg. 4], and you explained that you classify your

books by color. In this picture, I see only white books. I guess

you have other kinds of books. How do you tidy them?

De´borah: Ah . . . yes, of course . . . when I tidy away a

book it’s not always easy to put it away because I never know

whether to give precedence to the color or the size. [Quand

je range un livre, c’est pas toujours tre`s simple de le ranger

car je ne sais jamais si je dois privile´gier la couleur ou la

taille.] In fact, on the top row it’s easy because all the books

are Folio paperbacks . . . same color, same size, even though

age has turned some of them yellow. That’s great, that is!

That lovely white line. . . . Afterward, underneath it’s not

so important. Sometimes I mix them up because I don’t know

what to do. [Des fois, je fais des me´langes parce que je ne

sais pas comment faire.] The problem is, when there’s a big

red one and all the other red ones are small. That’s ugly . . .

that really looks awful. I put it with other books that are big

but not red. And then there are books with lots of colors . . .

pfff! Right, that, that’s really complicated. Generally speak-

ing, I look for the dominant color, and I make sure it doesn’t

look too bad with the others. (See the online appendix, sec.

7.)

To order her books De´borah has prioritized aesthetics over

functionality. Her book classiﬁcation system mixes four

classiﬁcation rules (by author, size, color, and collection).

This echoes Perec’s (2013) analysis in which he identiﬁes

11 ways of classifying books: by author, language, color,

reading priorities, acquisition date, publication date, style,

country, size, binding, and collection. De´borah manages her

576 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

FIGURE 4

´BORAH’S WHITE BOOKS

system perfectly with Folio books, which have the same

format and color and thus match perfectly her aesthetic logic.

In this situation, she sets up a hierarchically ordered system,

such as is described in scientiﬁc classiﬁcations, with well-

structured categories and subcategories (Bergesen 1978):

ﬁrst a classiﬁcation by collection (Folio books) that share

the same format and color and then within this category a

classiﬁcation by author. This creates a well-ordered and es-

thetic bookshelf. Conversely, De´borah faces difﬁculties with

other books because many have a unique format and color

that makes them difﬁcult to ﬁt with other categories, such

as the multicolored book or the big red book. This situation

echoes Douglas’s analysis of the pangolin, an animal be-

longing to three classiﬁcations (birds, ﬁsh, and mammals).

Douglas shows that these anomalies challenge the taxonomic

system and therefore threaten the social order. Similarly to

the pangolin in Lele society, the multicolored book and the

big red book ﬁt into several categories at the same time.

Douglas identiﬁes different ways to tackle anomalies in or-

der to reduce their dangerous and destructing power. She

insists on the importance of rituals to substantiate cultural

categories, for example, to make visible and concrete clas-

siﬁcations that organize the world. These rituals reinforce

both the structure of social reality and the subsequent moral

order that is infused into our structuring of reality with

categories and classiﬁcations (Nippert-Eng 1996). At a mi-

cro level, we ﬁnd similar practices to manage anomalies.

Our informants like De´borah highlight another way to man-

age them. They avoid anomalies by changing classiﬁcation

rules. They play with the boundaries of their categories,

expanding, changing, and suppressing them. For instance,

De´ borah introduces in one category a book that does not ﬁt

perfectly into the initial category deﬁnition but that is similar

in terms of color. She also changes the priorities of the

system, favoring size over color in order to better match her

aesthetic goal. This evolution in classiﬁcation logic allows

her to avoid anomalies and to tidy all her books on her

bookshelves. Even if it is not as well organized as on the

ﬁrst shelf, it is still tidy. At the general level, this change

in classiﬁcation logic creates a complex classiﬁcation system

with a multiplicity of accumulative and juxtaposed rules that

are not necessarily coherent. For instance, De´ borah tidies

her books by color, but because the red book is bigger than

other books, she puts it with books with the same format

but not the same color. Consequently, at the general level,

De´ borah’s system of classiﬁcation does not follow a logic

based on mutually exclusive hierarchical categories. It has

many incoherencies that are explained by the necessity to

adapt rules during the tidying process in order to manage

anomalies.

Further, De´borah highlights the contradictions between

the functions of tidiness and its aesthetics. She speciﬁes the

DION, SABRI, AND GUILLARD 577

trade-off she has to make between easily ﬁnding her books

and having her books nicely arranged. The functions of

tidiness, that is, being able to ﬁnd objects, minimizing the

time spent on tidying, making dangerous products inacces-

sible for children, or limiting tidying efforts, are personal

and subjective, whereas the aesthetic ascribes to cultural

discourses of tidiness and taste (Arsel and Bean 2013; Baud-

rillard 1968). Other informants refer to these contradictions

and stress the difﬁculties of combining them. Some explain

that they prioritize one over the other, such as De´borah, who

prefers aesthetics over functionality. Other consumers de-

scribe the tactics they use to manage these contradictions,

such as hiding things in such a way that they look nice and

are easy to tidy. For instance, Sonia explains that she has

in her kitchen un meuble a` jalousies [a furniture with jal-

ousie] that allows her to hide her Nespresso machine, her

kettle, and many other things. Thus, the kitchen looks nicer

because there is nothing lying around and it is easier to tidy

and to clean.

In sum, informants use a multiplicity of classiﬁcation

rules to tidy their homes: by the nature, size, color, use,

shape, user, and so forth, of an object. In context, they

prioritize functionality (ﬁnding objects easily, minimizing

the time spent on tidying, making dangerous products in-

accessible for children, limiting tidying efforts) or aesthetics

(organizing objects in an aesthetic way), or they try to com-

bine both. This diversity of goals and tidying rules has two

impacts on symbolic pollution. First, some might not un-

derstand others’ rules and thus see pollution where others

do not. This echoes Douglas’s idea that pollution is in “the

eye of the beholder.” Second, domestic classiﬁcation sys-

tems might not be well organized and logically structured

because they are the result of an accumulation of rules that

overlap and succeed one another. These multiple logics,

which are not necessarily coherent, create complex classiﬁ-

cation systems that may not have a logic at the global level.

Whereas each rule taken independently makes sense when

informants set them up because it helps them to manage

anomalies, it might create an accumulation of rules that are

mutually incoherent.

The Precision of Classiﬁcation Rules. Some informants

deﬁne broad classiﬁcations and others narrow ones. They

take into account single objects (e.g., a piece of Playmobil),

small groups of objects (e.g., Playmobil items, Barbies, Le-

gos) or even larger groups of objects (e.g., toys). These

differences have several impacts on the experience of tidi-

ness. For instance, informants Be´atrice and Nathalie have

opposing views about the classiﬁcation of their children’s

toys. They do not individuate objects in the same way, and

thus they are more and less sensitive to symbolic pollution.

Be´ atrice reveals her view:

It’s tidy when there are no toys visible because normally

there are cupboards with boxes and that sort of thing. . . .

No more toys to be seen, no more socks and toys not mixed

up inside the boxes [Plus de jouets, de chaussures visibles

et que les jouets ne soient pas me´lange´s a` l’inte´ rieur des

boıˆtes] because often, and that annoys me too, because . . .

he, my son, especially, since he’s the oldest . . . so you tell

him to tidy away his toys, and you open the boxes, and you

ﬁnd Playmobil items with dinosaurs, and at that point . . .

pfff, well, I just feel beaten. Playmobil items and dinosaurs

in the dinosaurs! Because that’s really hard to tidy. . . . in

fact when things are on the ﬂoor, for example, Playmobil

items and dinosaurs, well that’s OK because you sort the

Playmobil item into the Playmobil box and the dinosaurs into

the dinosaur box, but when you take the crate, and there are

really tiny objects all mixed up, well that’s a nightmare vi-

sion, it’s a horror story, you look at the box and scream,

“No! He can’t have done that!” [laughs] (See the online

appendix, sec. 8.)

Nathalie describes a picture of her child’s room:

There, that’s a picture of tidiness. That’s just about acceptable

for me, it’s Valentine’s room. . . . It’s tidy because there’s

nothing lying around on the ﬂoor. . . . Those big white pieces

of furniture, there are no drawers or divisions inside, they’re

like huge sliding boxes, so it’s really easy for the games

because they can put everything inside easily, but afterward

it’s a total mess inside [apre`s l’inte´rieur, c’est le bazar]. They

need to be able to put the games away easily because they

keep taking them out and putting them away, you see. I want

the girls to play in their room, I want them to use it, I don’t

want to constrain them. . . . I don’t want them not to play

with their toys just because I like to see their room tidy, and

so they don’t get to make use of their room; they’re only

little girls. I ﬁnd it a bit silly to say, “That castle goes there,

the pink boxes are for Playmobil items, the ones that are in

a line go over there, the board games go in that cupboard

there.” You know, everything in its place. No! . . . It’s sim-

ple, the organization is simple. There are just four large draw-

ers, and it only takes seconds in fact to make it look a little

bit tidy, but I’m not over-fussy, it’s tolerable, you know. . . .

[c¸a prend deux secondes en fait pour que c¸a a` l’air un peu

pre`s range´c¸a a` l’air un peu pre`s range´ , mais je ne suis pas

maniaque je trouve que c’est tole´rable quoi]. In the drawers,

it’s a joyous dump, everything just chucked in there anyhow,

Barbie dolls, Playmobil items . . . everything on top of ev-

erything. But nobody’s bothered. [Dans les tiroirs, c’est un

joyeux foutoir il y a tout empile´ n’importe comment, les

barbies, les playmobils, les . . . tout se superpose. Mais, c¸a

ne de´range personne.] (See the online appendix, sec. 8).

Nathalie and Be´atrice differ in the precision of their clas-

siﬁcation systems. Be´atrice’s classiﬁcation is very precise

and meticulous. Dinosaurs and Playmobil items belong to

the same category (her son’s toys), which is divided into

subcategories (e.g., dinosaurs vs. Playmobil items), and

therefore they cannot be mixed. This echoes De´borah’s book

classiﬁcation with categories (color) and subcategories (size

and alphabetical order). Nathalie doesn’t make such object

individuation and subclassiﬁcations. Therefore, Playmobil

items do not have to be put in speciﬁc boxes and separated

from Barbies. In the drawers, toys are mixed; they are stock-

piled “dans un joyeux foutoir” [in a joyous dump]. The

578 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

difference in terms of individuation leads to different per-

ceptions of pollution. Informants like Be´atrice, who organ-

izes her home according to a narrow classiﬁcation system

that deﬁnes a precise place for objects, face more symbolic

pollution. Informants like Nathalie, who do not individuate

objects and does not assign them to speciﬁc places, face

less symbolic pollution. Toys and games can be in any of

the four drawers in the bedroom. As long as they are in

those drawers, it does not affect her at all. Because Be´atrice

and Nathalie do not set similar boundaries between toys,

the former sees pollution where the latter does not. The more

we segment, the more we show evidence of transgression

(Nippert-Eng 1996).

Classiﬁcation precision also impacts anomalies because,

when classiﬁcations are getting too narrow, it might be more

difﬁcult to assign objects to categories. For instance, com-

menting on a photo of the inside of a large cupboard, De´-

borah relates her attempt to tidy a box full of school ma-

terials (pens, rules, scissors, etc.):

Let’s begin straight away with the total horror: the inside of

the cupboard that belonged to Pierre’s great-grandmother. It’s

a nice cupboard. But inside it’s terrible. It’s always an ab-

solute mess. No matter how often I tidy it, it quickly reverts

to a mess. [C’est toujours en bazar. J’ai beau ranger mais le

bazar revient aussitoˆ t.] I don’t know how many hours I’ve

spent tidying the inside of this cupboard. The problem is that

every time I ﬁnd something lying around the house, I stuff

it in the cupboard. The worst is when I’m working at home.

. . . Because I work on the table in the dining room, when

we eat, I chuck everything in the cupboard any old how.

Well, you may not realize, it but there is a certain logic behind

this mess. [Mais bon, on ne dirait pas mais il y a une certaine

logique derrie`re ce bazar.] To start with, there are boxes with

precise functions. The red one there, that’s for paper. The

other red one, on the right, is for pens. The problem is that

they are full to bursting. The other day my daughter was

bored. So I suggested that she tidy the pencil box. We call

it the pencil box because basically we put pencils in it, but

there are also lots of associated items. . . . It’s a bit like a

big school pencil case. There is other stuff. . . . So, OK, we

managed to throw out about 15 old pens that had stopped

working. We made a pencil case for paints and another for

crayons and felt tips. But afterward we didn’t know what to

do with the rest. There are so many items: a stapler, a pair

of compasses, sticky tape, erasers, highlighters, scissors, and

all that . . . all that. . . . How do you tidy away all that?

Children’s scissors, do you put them with the scissors or with

the children’s stuff or on their own? And then we didn’t have

any spare pencil cases or places to stick the stuff. So we

lumped everything together and threw it all back into the

box. [Alors on a tout remis en vrac dans la caisse.] Pff . . .

Total failure! (See the online appendix, sec. 9.)

The pencil box story highlights the difﬁculty of identifying

subclassiﬁcations among objects. Contrary to De´borah’s

previous narrative, in which she explains how she plays with

classiﬁcation rules to avoid anomalies, she does not ﬁnd

appropriate logics to subclassify her pens. She excludes non-

working pens and identiﬁes two easy categories (painting

materials and coloring pens) and separates them from others

by putting them into two different pencil cases. Then she

ﬁnds it too difﬁcult to classify other pens because there are

so many different kinds of objects and because she lacks

the appropriate boxes to separate the categories. Thus, the

change in the classiﬁcation of objects from broad (e.g., a

large pencil case with all the material) to individuated (e.g.,

the children’s scissors, the felt-tip pens) becomes too dif-

ﬁcult to manage and multiplies the risk of anomalies, such

as the children’s scissors.

In sum, informants consider single objects, small groups

of objects, and/or large groups of objects and thus deﬁne

more or less precise classiﬁcation systems. When classiﬁ-

cations are broad, objects do not have a well-deﬁned place

and so can mix with others without transgressing symbolic

boundaries and without generating symbolic pollution.

Therefore, because people refer to different classiﬁcation

systems with various degrees of precision and levels of in-

dividuation, what is symbolic pollution for one informant

might not be for another. Further, some individuals opt for

less complex rules to protect themselves from pollution,

while others get bogged down in their own rules. Informants

who use precise domestic classiﬁcations are more exposed

to pollution and to anomalies because there is a higher risk

of classiﬁcation transgression and a higher risk of anomalies.

Now that we have highlighted two key issues in the clas-

siﬁcation process, in the next section we will look at trans-

gressions of classiﬁcation.

Classiﬁcation Transgressions

Following Douglas (1967), departure from classiﬁcation

threatens the stability provided by the social order, and so

transgression is regarded as wrong and immoral (Du¨ rr and

Jaffe 2010; Woersdorfer 2010). As Douglas explains, “Pol-

lution rules, by contrast with moral rules, are unequivocal.

They do not depend on intention or a nice balancing of

rights and duties. The only material question is whether a

forbidden contact has taken place or not” (1967, 162). How-

ever, there are usually many things out of place in a house,

but only some elicit a response and generate symbolic pol-

lution. Thus, in this section, we will study tolerated trans-

gressions and danger-beliefs.

Tolerated Transgressions. Because new objects are con-

tinuously coming in, going out, and moving around the

house, consumers cannot comply perfectly with their clas-

siﬁcation system; doing so would demand too great an effort.

These continual movements create disruptions in the clas-

siﬁcation system, and informants try to accommodate them

by tolerating transgressions. For instance, informant Marcel

has a wine cellar, which contains about 200 bottles stored

on wine racks (ﬁg. 5).

Marcel: OK, there, that’s tidy . . . you see . . . in fact it’s

classic organization. Bottles of wine stacked on a wine-rack.

DION, SABRI, AND GUILLARD 579

FIGURE 5

MARCEL’S WINE CELLAR

. . . In principle, a white is with the whites, a red is with

the reds, a Burgundy is with the Burgundies, a Bordeaux with

the Bordeaux, and so forth. But, well, it’s not perfect because

you really need a system for classiﬁcation by year in order

to have the bottles to hand. But that takes a lot of time and

would require permanent arranging. So anyway, that suits

me. It’s ﬁne like that. It’s tidy. [Donc voila`, c¸a me va. C’est

bien comme c¸a. C’est range´.]

Interviewer (second interview):Last time, you showed me

this picture [ﬁg. 5], and you explained how you classify your

wine bottles. In this picture, I see a few gaps in your wine

racks . . .

Marcel: Yes, well, there are gaps. . . . When there’s a gap,

it’s because we’ve drunk the bottle that was there . . . and

when there’s a gap . . . when there’s a gap that’s big enough

to take a case, I bring up a case [Marcel also stores wine in

his garage where he has about 150 bottles in their original

cases]. I open it, and I take the bottles from the case, and I

put them on the rack, in the wine rack. OK, there, the years

might be mixed up . . . in fact, yes. . . . [Bon la`, il peut y

avoir du me´lange d’anne´es . . . effectivement oui. . . .] Oth-

erwise, it’d have to be done differently . . . but we do that

when we’ve got time to spare. We do it once or twice a year,

we reorganize, we restore order if it’s really disorganized.

But in fact, rather than undo the whole thing, we just ﬁll in

the gaps. In fact, we try to respect the category, but there

might be one bottle that is older than the ones around it. But,

well . . . it’s not ideal, but we can work round it. That’s the

way it is. [Mais c¸a on le fait une ou deux fois par an, on

restructure, on remet de l’ordre s’il y a vraiment des de´r-

angements. Mais bon plutoˆ t que tout de´faire, on bouche le

trou. Alors on essaie de garder la meˆ me cate´gorie mais il

peut y avoir une bouteille qui peut eˆtre plus vieille par rapport

aux autres qui l’entourent. Mais bon. . . cest peut-eˆtre pas

l’ide´al mais on s’y retrouve. C’est comme c¸ a.] (See the online

appendix, sec. 10.)

Marcel tries to manage the order in his wine cellar by re-

specting broad categories (white and red wine) and subcat-

egories (Bordeaux, Burgundy). He wishes he could also

respect narrower subclassiﬁcations (by year), but this would

be too demanding. He would have to reorder his wine cellar

every time he adds or drinks a bottle. Therefore, to keep it

manageable, Marcel accommodates almost perfect order. He

knows it is not perfect, but he accepts it because it is the

only way to manage the in-and-out ﬂux that creates disorder

in the ideal order. Even if he would like to get his cellar

perfectly tidy, he accepts a few transgressions in his clas-

siﬁcations. Similarly, many other informants stress minor

transgressions in their classiﬁcations that they accept to keep

it manageable. Therefore, to manage domestic dynamics,

almost all our informants specify that they tolerate classi-

ﬁcation transgressions. They know that they transgress their

classiﬁcation system, but they allow themselves these trans-

gressions.

Tolerated transgressions do not generate any symbolic

pollution until a crisis occurs. The crisis transforms tolerated

580 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

FIGURE 6

HASSNA’S BATHROOM

transgression into symbolic pollution. Like informant He-

lena in the following narrative, many informants relate spe-

ciﬁc events that suddenly make tolerated transgressions in-

tolerable. Helena comments on a picture of her bathroom:

That, that’s not tidy. These are things I use every day, which

I pick up and put down, pick up and put down. And so it

isn’t tidy, the contact lenses shouldn’t be there, they’ve got

a little box. There, there are jars missing, so that means

they’re lying about somewhere else. There, the brush and the

comb, they’re not put away in the little box. And they’re

going to fall. It’s not very . . . Usually, that jar there is

further forward because I use it a lot, and so it’s likely to

fall. Everything is going to fall! I’m a bit, I don’t take any

notice when I take something. Those two there are also going

to fall. . . . [Tout va tomber! Je suis un peu brouillon, je ne

fais pas attention donc si je prends un produit, ces deux la`

vont tomber. . . .] So I tidy, as soon as something topples,

I tidy. It’s going to get on my nerves to set up a system that

doesn’t work, so I tidy, it’s going to get on my nerves to do

the same thing all the time, so. . . . There, that’s about to

fall. I’m going to make a bit of space here . . . and so on.

Things pile up, and once a crisis situation develops, the basin

overﬂows or something falls over, then you have to introduce

a bit of order . . . fast. [C¸ a s’accumule et a` partir du moment

ou` il a une situation de crise, un de´bordement dans l’e´ vier

ou un truc qui tombe, la` il faut une remise en ordre . . .

rapidement.] (See the online appendix, sec. 11.)

Helena gives a detailed description of a pollution crisis. She

emphasizes how transgressions multiply and how this ac-

cumulation suddenly generates a crisis. In her case, a speciﬁc

event creates the crisis (e.g., something falls down or is

about to do so). However, most of the time, informants do

not cite any speciﬁc event. They just decide that they cannot

accept the situation any longer. As Marcel explains when

talking about his wine cellar, when the situation becomes

too messy, it is important to reorder things to get back to

a well-organized situation. Thus, pollution is not only a

question of classiﬁcation contradiction but also of how these

transgressions are designated. There are many tolerated

transgressions that do not elicit a response. A place may not

be acknowledged as messy until a crisis occurs. The crisis

resembles a tipping point that makes transgressions no

longer tolerable. Therefore it is not things being objectively

out of place but our reaction to their being out of place that

generates their designation as polluted (Bergesen 1978).

In short, most informants do not follow their classiﬁcation

system meticulously, and they tolerate many classiﬁcation

ﬂows. Not respecting their classiﬁcation system helps them

to manage pollution. They tolerate these transgressions until

a crisis occurs that transforms tolerated transgression into

pollution. Conversely, if a crisis does not occur, transgres-

sions remain and can even transform into normal situations.

These ﬁndings highlight the importance of pollution label-

ing. It is not things being objectively out of place but our

reaction to them that generates their designation as pollution

(Bergesen 1978). These practices raise questions about dan-

ger-beliefs, upon which we elaborate next.

Danger-Beliefs. As we have already highlighted, con-

sumers worry that untidiness might create a bad impression.

However, most of them emphasize difﬁculties in keeping

their home tidy, which implicates a clash between personal

preferences and social norms and points to a fear that fol-

lowing personal preferences may carry a social cost. The

clash between personal preferences and social norms is a

particularly special case of the more general point that peo-

ple’s tidiness practices are internally inconsistent but inten-

tionally so. This inconsistency is not just driven by fear of

being seen as untidy. People are willing, even privately and

without the actual or imagined watchful eye of others, to

break tidiness rules. Informants emphasize that they can

transgress the classiﬁcation rules in speciﬁc situations but

not in others. For instance, informant Hassna gave us a

picture of each room of her ﬂat taken on a weekday and on

weekends. On weekdays, she tolerates a high level of un-

tidiness, whereas during the weekend she likes her ﬂat to

be properly tidy (ﬁgs. 6 and 7):

In the bathroom everything is on the ﬂoor. When I have a

DION, SABRI, AND GUILLARD 581

FIGURE 7

HASSNA’S SITTING-ROOM ON WEEKDAYS

shower, I take off my clothes, and I leave them in a heap.

[Dans ma salle de bain, il y a tout par terre. Quand je prends

ma douche, je retire mes affaires, et je les laisse en tas.] I

don’t tidy up every day. The bath towel is also on the ﬂoor.

There’s also the face cloth hanging near the washbasin, al-

though it’s got its own place. Basically, it doesn’t worry me

too much to leave things lying around and not tidying up

every day. [Au fond, c¸ a ne me de´range pas trop de laisser

trainer des choses et de ne pas ranger tous les jours.] I tidy

up more on the weekend. But it’s true, if I’ve got people

coming around during the week, then I tidy up during the

week. But generally speaking, it’s the weekend. Already, I

tidy up during the weekend just for me. It’s much nicer to

live in a clean space than in a mess. Afterward, what with

work and tiredness in the evening, even if it’s not tidy, you

can’t be bothered, you don’t really want to. On the other

hand, on the weekend, you take the time because you feel

better in your home once it’s tidy. I like Sundays, when it’s

tidy. I couldn’t spend a whole weekend at home if it wasn’t

tidy. It affects your mood. Untidiness makes you even more

tired. When it’s clean, when it’s tidy, then it motivates you

to get up. You enjoy it even more when you’re enjoying a

drink when watching TV because it’s tidy. [Par contre le

week-end, tu prends le temps car tu te sens mieux chez toi

quand c’est range´ . J’aime bien le dimanche quand c’est range´.

Je ne pourrais pas passer un week-end entier chez moi sans

que ce soit range´. Ca joue sur l’humeur. Ca te rend encore

plus fatigue´ le bordel.] (See the online appendix, sec. 12.)

Hassna accommodates untidiness in speciﬁc situations (e.g.,

on weekdays and when there are no visitors to the home).

In these situations, she deviates from her deﬁned classiﬁ-

cation system without any consequences. She leaves every-

thing where she uses it: bath towels on the ground, washing

products on the living room table, shoes in the middle of

the hallway, bed unmade, and so forth. She knows it is

messy, but she is ﬁne with that, and it is usually that way

on weekdays. However, she tidies her place on the weekend.

As she stresses, she tidies for her sake and not just because

visitors are coming. She needs her place to be tidy in order

to enjoy it during the weekend and not feel distress. Thus,

danger-beliefs are not only due to social pressure but also

dependent upon personal beliefs. Hassna evokes many per-

sonal danger-beliefs linked to untidiness, such as a low qual-

ity of life and stress. She reﬂects marketed ideals, often

springing almost directly from advertising that focuses on

neat, tidy, well-organized living spaces. As IKEA expresses

it, living in a tidy and well-organized house is important to

feeling good and relaxed.

Further, tidiness rules do not always match everyday prac-

tices because, as Douglas emphasizes, each situation has its

speciﬁc risks and issues. For instance, informants Claudine

and Gislaine, who are fanatically tidy and have perfectly

tidy homes, tolerate mess on their desks. For both of them

the desk is the only untidy place in their home because work

generates speciﬁc constraints and risks that justify untidi-

ness. Claudine notes:

My desk is the only place that is never very tidy. Because I

need to see the things I have to do, so I don’t forget them.

So, if I’ve got letters to send, I leave them out where I can

see them, because that reminds me that I need to send them.

And . . . that gives me the impression that I’m working. But,

a tidy desk, that means that I’ve got nothing to do. That’s

not normal because there’s always something to do. [C¸ a me

donne l’impression que je bosse. Alors qu’un bureau range´,

c¸a signiﬁe que je n’ai rien a` faire. Ce n’est pas normal car

on a toujours quelque chose a` faire].

And Gislaine describes her desk (ﬁg. 8):

That’s my desk, there, it’s not tidy at all, it’s only when I’m

working, when I work that it gets untidy, . . . there’s a diary,

a camera. It doesn’t worry me when I’m working, but when

I go back to it, then everything has to be tidy. Each time I

ﬁnish up, I tidy up. Tidying means making piles. [C¸ a ne me

de´range pas quand je travaille mais quand je reviens il faut

que ce soit range´. A chaque fois que c’est termine´ , je range.

Ranger c’est faire des tas.] There, you can see an open drawer.

I can’t abide open drawers or cupboards. On the desk there’s

a padlock, a camera, that’s got no business being there . . .

582 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

FIGURE 8

GISLAINE’S DESK

untidy desk, papers everywhere, drawer open . . . there’s a

lot of activity. I need to tidy my desk at least once a week

in order to straighten out my ideas. When I work, the desk

can be untidy, but when I’m no longer working, I can’t bear

to see my desk like that. [Quand je travaille le bureau peut

eˆtre en de´ sordre mais de` s que je ne travaille pas je ne supporte

pas de voir mon bureau comme c¸a.] (See the online appendix,

sec. 13.)

Claudine and Gislaine describe messy environments while

they work: things accumulating on their desks (even objects

not linked to their work), open drawers, documents out of

order lying about, and so on. Interestingly, the desk is the

only place in their home where they tolerate mess. They

explain that working has its speciﬁc risks and issues, such

as forgetting to do things or looking as if they have no work.

Amessydeskgivestheimpressionthatworkisinprogress.

It symbolically represents activity. This is in line with re-

search on tidiness at work that shows that colleagues are

judged more positively if their desks are slightly messy

(Morrow and McElroy 1981; Sitton 1984). Further, when

Gislaine needs clear ideas, she needs to tidy her ofﬁce. It

helps her to relax and get things clear in her mind. Other

informants also highlighted the beneﬁts of untidiness when

performing creative activities and how it helps them to be

more creative. Pollution, which is normally threatening,

sometimes becomes creative and can be used as a positive

resource (Mody 2011). Therefore, people tolerate mess in

speciﬁc situations that are related to danger-beliefs and sym-

bolism. Each situation has its speciﬁc risks and issues.

Therefore, a behavior can be judged as dangerous and in-

appropriate in one speciﬁc context and not in another.

In short, people are willing, even privately and without

the actual or imagined watchful eye of others, to break ti-

diness rules. These ﬁndings contradict one of Douglas’s

important cornerstones—that pollution rules are unequivo-

cal. In a domestic context, rules are not unequivocal because

danger-beliefs are context-dependent, changing upon activ-

ity, time, and place.

DISCUSSION

In this analysis, we investigated untidiness from the angle

of symbolic pollution taking Douglas’s seminal work Purity

and Danger (1967) as a central reference point. Douglas

deﬁnes pollution as the departure from classiﬁcations. She

highlights the cultural construction of pollution, stating that

it is based on a symbolic and culturally constituted system

of classiﬁcation, which is constructed, transmitted, and

shared. Symbolic pollution disturbs rules and classiﬁcations;

it threatens the social order established by science, religion,

or ideology (Campkin and Cox 2007; Du¨ rr and Jaffe 2010;

Meylakhs 2009).

DION, SABRI, AND GUILLARD 583

In consumer research, symbolic pollution is mainly as-

sociated with dirt (Beall 2006; Campkin and Cox 2007; Ger

and Yenicioglu 2004; Neves 2004). These authors analyze

the ways in which consumers create, eliminate, or shift sym-

bolic boundaries through cleanliness and washing practices.

However, consumers confound hygiene with symbolic pol-

lution by tending to focus on the sanitary dimensions of

disorder (Bedin and Fournier 2009). In contrast with pre-

vious studies, we focus on symbolic pollution that is not

concerned with sanitary issues. This enables us to avoid

potential confusion induced by sanitary dimensions.

Extending Douglas’s work, we take a different angle on

symbolic pollution, shifting from the macro-social to the

micro-social level, with an emphasis on everyday and mun-

dane domestic practices. Studying untidiness at home, we

investigated the place of things and the way we understand

tidiness (things in the right place) and untidiness (things out

of place). In doing so, we focused on the negotiation of

cultural norms at a micro level (Askegaard and Linnet 2011;

Desjeux 1999) because the structures identiﬁed at a macro

level are in dialogue with the practices and dialectical in-

teraction identiﬁed at a micro level leading to a negotiation

of the structure of tidiness/untidiness and its evolution (Sew-

ell 1992). This micro-social analysis of tidiness gives new

insights on symbolic pollution and on materiality.

Symbolic Pollution

Our ﬁndings corroborate Douglas’s work emphasizing

symbolic classiﬁcation systems that prescribe “proper”

(shares an etymological root with cleanliness) places for

objects and deﬁne symbolic boundaries between categories

of objects. In line with Douglas’s analysis, we demonstrate

that tidying practice substantiates the symbolic classiﬁcation

system, that is to say, it makes the cultural meaning that

organizes the domestic environment visible and concrete.

Both macro-social and the micro-social systems are based

on the same conditions, that is, classiﬁcations and dangerous

transgressions of classiﬁcation. Tidying reinforces both the

structure of social reality and the moral order that subse-

quently infuses our structuring of reality by categories and

classiﬁcations.

However, our results show that at a micro-social level,

individuals negotiate the deﬁnition of classiﬁcation and

transgression through daily, mundane actions that have

many impacts on the perception and management of sym-

bolic pollution. Studying symbolic pollution generated by

untidiness, we emphasize the central role of boundary work

and beliefs about personal danger that give people the ﬂex-

ibility to manage symbolic pollution that emerges when

transgressing boundaries.

Boundary Work. From Douglas’s perspective, objects

are classiﬁed into a number of mutually exclusive conceptual

categories; that is to say, no object belongs to two classes

at the same time. Elements that do not ﬁt into the classiﬁ-

cation, called anomalies, are symbolically separated from

other elements through a different process in order to re-

inforce the structure of the classiﬁcation system and the

subsequent social order (Douglas 1967). Further, categories

are organized into a hierarchically ordered and mutually

exclusive sequence. In other words, all ﬁrst-level categories

can be classiﬁed along a second level, and so on, and at a

given level of the hierarchy all categories are mutually ex-

clusive (Sperber 1975). At a micro-social level, our results

show that classiﬁcations might not follow such hierarchical

logic.

First, some consumers use one-level classiﬁcations with-

out subclassiﬁcations. Our results show that some consumers

do not individuate objects but consider a general group of

objects without making differences between objects within

acategory(e.g.,toys).Categoriesarenotclassiﬁedalonga

second level (e.g. Barbies, Playmobil items, dinosaurs) or

athirdlevel(e.g.,thePlaymobilpirate,thePlaymobilcow-

boy). Using one-level classiﬁcations avoids anomalies and

category transgressions and consequently symbolic pollu-

tion. Since there is no second-order classiﬁcation, the place

of things is deﬁned very broadly and objects can mix without

generating any symbolic pollution. Conversely, individuals

who use multiple-level classiﬁcations are more exposed to

pollution, because the place of things is deﬁned precisely

and there is a higher risk of classiﬁcation transgressions and

anomalies. Therefore, the more people try to order their

home by deﬁning multiple-level classiﬁcations, the more

exposed they are to pollution.

Second, at the micro-social level, classiﬁcations are con-

structed through a multitude of micro actions that succeed

one another. Consequently, several logics are juxtaposed,

and the addition of all these rules deﬁned at the local level

might generate a complex and incoherent classiﬁcation sys-

tem at the general level, which might not be mutually ex-

haustive and hierarchically ordered. Our results show that

individuals manipulate their classiﬁcation rules to manage

pollution and anomalies: they modify rules about priorities

during the tidying process, revise borders, change the mode

of objects’ individuation using broader or narrower classi-

ﬁcation rules, and so forth. This boundary work gives them

the ﬂexibility to manage anomalies and transgressions and

consequently to avoid symbolic pollution. It also allows

people to integrate objects easily into their classiﬁcation

system and thus avoid anomalies and pollution. They deﬁne

their domestic classiﬁcations step by step, juxtaposing dif-

ferent logics, changing their classiﬁcation rules in action

when they face speciﬁc situations and difﬁculties. For ex-

ample, consider Deborah’s difﬁculties in tidying books that

do not ﬁt with her initial tidying rules and that made her

change her classiﬁcations rules. Thus, the place of an object

could be judged differently if we consider the local logic

(e.g., the individual micro-tidying practice) or the global

logic (e.g., the entire home). From which perspective do we

say that an object is in its right place? Should we consider

it from the practice perspective, taking into account indi-

vidual micro-practice logic, or should we consider it from

the global perspective, taking into account the cultural logic

governing the whole? Deﬁning the level of analysis is im-

584 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

portant for understanding the concept of the place of things

because an object could be seen in its right place according

to micro-practice logic but out of place according to global

logic, because micro-practices succeed one another without

necessarily being coherent.

In conclusion, individuals continually play out categorical

distinctions, so that the symbolic world they create is made

consistent with their daily constraints (McCracken 1986;

Nippert-Eng 1996). Our results show that people create

boundaries, ignore some of them (deﬁnitively or temporar-

ily), and change them to manage symbolic pollution. These

ﬁndings highlight the key role of “boundary work,” the

strategies, principles, and practices that individuals use to

create, maintain, and modify categories (Nippert-Eng 1996).

It allows categories and classiﬁcation to exist, to be mean-

ingful, and to change over time depending on situations and

contexts. People manipulate classiﬁcation systems to avoid

transgressions and anomalies. This boundary work gives

them ﬂexibility to manage anomalies and transgressions and

consequently to avoid symbolic pollution. Therefore, clas-

siﬁcations do not only have a cognitive function, by facil-

itating meaning (Durkheim and Mauss 1903), or a social

function, by preserving symbolic and social order (Douglas

1967); they also have a practice function, by facilitating

action and coping with symbolic pollution.

Personal Danger-Beliefs. Douglas assumes that classi-

ﬁcation systems are preserved by the implementation of

prohibitions, taboos, and danger-beliefs to preserve their sta-

bility and visibility over time (Du¨ rr and Jaffe 2010). Con-

sequently, any transgression is regarded as wrong and im-

moral, and anomalies are avoided and eradicated to maintain

the classiﬁcation rules unchanged. However, at the micro-

social level, our ﬁndings show that disorder does not sys-

tematically trigger pollution. Consumers are willing to break

tidiness rules in speciﬁc situations. For example, consider

Hassna’s ﬂat on weekdays: shoes and clothes lying every-

where on the ground, washing and make-up products strewn

on the living-room table, the sink full of dirty dishes, and

so forth. This is a classic Douglas situation, with things

clearly out of place. However, this mess does not bother

Hassna on week days. Thus, symbolic pollution is not only

aquestionofclassiﬁcationcontradictionorthingsbeingout

of place but also of the labeling of these transgressions. Our

ﬁndings show that many things can be out of place but only

some elicit symbolic pollution. People tolerate some ﬂaws

in classiﬁcation and transgression of boundaries. Therefore,

it is not things being out of place but our reaction to their

being out of place that generates their designation as polluted

(Bergesen 1978). Our results also show that transgressions

have different meanings, depending on context, and that

respondents are willing to break tidiness rules because dan-

ger-beliefs associated with transgressions are context-de-

pendent. For instance, our results show that a messy desk

is appreciated because it symbolizes creativity, activity, and

work in progress.

Further, at the micro-social level, rules are not unequiv-

ocal because danger-beliefs change depending on the con-

text. Danger-beliefs are not only linked to normative pres-

sures but also to personal constraints and situations. There

is a shift from moral beliefs that present untidiness as so-

cially threatening to personal danger-beliefs that link unti-

diness to quality of life, personal efﬁciency, and so forth.

This is in line with a trend toward demoralization in modern

societies (Meylakhs 2009). The danger-beliefs that receive

the most attention are not connected with legitimating moral

principles but with personal danger. Risky behavior is only

risky because it can cause harm, not because it is a symbol

of moral decline (Douglas 1992). This is, for instance, what

IKEA stresses to convince consumers to buy home-orga-

nizing products. Rather than using moral arguments based

on the idea that it is socially unacceptable to have an untidy

house, IKEA highlights the personal dangers associated with

untidiness: stress, inefﬁciency, poor quality of life, and so

forth.

In conclusion, we show that, like the symbolic pollution

in traditional societies described by Douglas, untidiness fol-

lows two conditions—classiﬁcation and dangerous trans-

gression of classiﬁcation. However, our results show that,

at a micro-social level, individuals negotiate the deﬁnition

and transgression of classiﬁcations through daily mundane

actions, which have many impacts on pollution perception

and management. This micro-social analysis of tidiness

gives also new insights on materiality.

Materiality

In consumer research, most studies on materiality have

focused on relationships with possessions. They have ana-

lyzed “the central role of possessions in understanding con-

sumer self, identities, and communities, as well as the con-

struction of narratives of belonging, personal and family

identity, and collective memory” (Bardhi, Eckhardt, and Ar-

nould 2012, 523). One of the main focuses is on the cultural

meaning of possessions, showing how possessions express

individual and collective characteristics and modes of exis-

tence (Askegaard and Linnet 2011). In this perspective, stud-

ies on tidiness have mainly focused on self-expression un-

derlying how untidiness expresses personality and identity

(Abrahamson and Freedman 2013; Belk et al. 2007; Filiod

2003). In contrast to this research on tidiness and on mate-

riality, we show that understanding materiality also requires

studying how consumers structure their material environment.

We show tha t i t i s n o t o n l y t h e po s se ss io ns a n d o b j ec ts t h a t

carry symbolic and cultural meaning but also the ordering

practices of possessions that embody cultural meaning. This

echoes Miller’s analysis of the order of things,thatis,the

way social and cultural meaning infuse material order (Miller

2005, 2008). Miller shows how consumers bring together the

dispersed elements of their lives, from religion to work to

family, and create an overall social cosmology based on the

complementary among them (Miller 2008). The foundation

of these ideas came from Bourdieu (1971), who analyzed the

orders in everyday life and showed how the practices that

emerge from these orders stored up the power of social re-

production. However, while Miller focuses on the order of

DION, SABRI, AND GUILLARD 585

things, describing the way social and cultural meaning infuse

material order (Borgerson 2009), we focus on disorder. We

analyze contradictions within the order of things and introduce

the concept of symbolic pollution to understand dynamics

within the order of things.

Research on materiality needs to analyze how consumers

manage contradictions within their overall social cosmology

that emerge through everyday practices. Studying these ev-

eryday life practices is essential for understanding the struc-

ture and dynamics of consumption culture, because these

practices enable us to analyze how consumers navigate cul-

tural views on materiality. Because social and cultural rules

are always abstract and because they never prescribe spe-

ciﬁcally the conduct that will lead to a desired outcome in

any social situation, consumers never face a completely pre-

dictable outcome of the social symbolic exchanges in which

they engage (Askegaard and Linnet 2011). They thus have

to improvise and to adapt the cultural rules to ﬁt with their

daily constraints and opportunities (de Certeau 1980). For

instance, consumers could encounter difﬁculties in conform-

ing to the tidiness norm because objects are continuously

coming in, going out, and moving around the house; con-

sumers cannot comply perfectly with their classiﬁcation sys-

tem since doing so would demand too great an effort. These

continual movements create disruptions and contractions in

the classiﬁcation system. To avoid symbolic pollution that

could emerge in such situations, consumers experiment with

several tactics. We have identiﬁed two main tactics: (1)

boundary work,thatis,consumerscontinuallymodifyclas-

siﬁcations, so that their domestic classiﬁcations ﬁt with their

everyday constraints and speciﬁc contexts. They alter the

boundaries of their categories, expanding, changing, and

suppressing them to avoid anomalies and transgressions and

consequently to avoid symbolic pollution; (2) transgression

labeling,thatis,inaspeciﬁccontext,theconsumertolerates

transgressions, and thus many things that are out of place

do not generate symbolic pollution. Through these practices,

consumers both comply with the cultural norm of tidiness

and manage symbolic pollution. Therefore, in studying ma-

teriality, we argue that the focus should not only be on

possessions but also on the way consumers order their ma-

terial environment to create a meaningful and symbolically

unpolluted environment. Understanding these everyday

practices helps us to understand how consumers adapt the

cultural rules to ﬁt with their daily constraints and oppor-

tunities.

Avenues for Future Research

We have focu s e d o u r r e s e a rc h on u n d e r st an di ng t h e c u l t u r a l

meaning of (un)tidiness by analyzing the concept of “the place

of things” and the way we understand the categories of tidy

and untidy. One obvious extension is to investigate further

familial relationships around the question of “the place of

things.” Following previous research on individual and collec-

tive identities in domestic space linked to untidiness (Dowling

2008; Filiod 2003; Stevenson and Prout 2013; Welzer-Lang

and Filiod 1992), longitudinal studies of tidying practices cou-

pled with interviews with each family member could investigate

the following points further: how families negotiate the home

classiﬁcation system that deﬁnes the place of things (conﬂicts,

legitimatization, appropriation, resistance, protection, etc.); how

each person tolerates out of place things that belong to others;

how children learn the place of things; and how danger-beliefs

are enacted, shared, and transmitted within the family. These

ﬁndings on familial tidiness practices would deepen the liter-

ature on symbolic pollution, familial conﬂicts (Martens and

Scott 2006), familial practices (Epp and Price 2010), and gender

(Welzer-Lang and Filiod 1992). One other possible extension

is to analyze how life events, such as a birth or a house move,

disrupt home classiﬁcations, impose the development of new

classiﬁcations, and change danger-beliefs. Studying the impact

of life events on tidiness would deepen the work on life events

Home Sweet Messy Home: Managing Symbolic Pollution

Abstract and Figures