Bauman’s liquid modernity has been influential among consumer culture theorists in recent times. A key element of this thinking is that old social structures have broken down, consumers being less encumbered by their structural origins and freer to pursue more diverse lifestyles. The ensuing three commentaries critically examine the claim that old social structures have become less relevant. Caldwell and Henry detail some of the critiques of Bauman and point out that consumers’ management of liquidity versus solidity can be usefully understood using a Bourdieusian lens. Their arguments are informed by contemporary literature focusing on social class, family life cycle and mythical role preferences. Thompson and Kumar argue that inconspicuous consumption masks social class-based differences in the distribution of resources that act to maintain structural inequalities. Parsons and Cappellini explore how conditions of liquidity mean that some people can accrue value much more easily than others. These authors argue that the enabling capacities that prevail under conditions of liquidity (e.g. flexibility, idiosyncratic taste) are not new but rather have long been known to act as enablers of success among advantaged classes.

鲍曼（Bauman）的流动性现代性最近在消费文化理论家中产生了影响。这种思想的一个关键因素是，旧的社会结构已经崩溃，消费者不再受其结构起源的束缚，而更自由地追求更多样化的生活方式。随后的三篇评论评论性地检查了旧社会结构变得不那么重要的说法。考德威尔（Caldwell）和亨利（Henry）详细介绍了鲍曼（Bauman）的一些批评，并指出，使用布尔迪厄斯透镜可以有效地理解消费者对流动性与稳固性的管理。他们的论据是由关注社会阶层，家庭生活周期和神话角色选择的当代文学提供的。汤普森和库马尔认为，不起眼的消费掩盖了社会阶层基于资源的分配差异，这些差异起到维持结构性不平等的作用。帕森斯（Parsons）和卡佩里尼（Cappellini）探索流动性状况如何意味着某些人比其他人更容易累积价值。这些作者认为，在流动性条件下（例如，灵活性，特质品位）普遍存在的赋能能力并不是新生事物，而是长期以来被认为是在有优势的阶级中成功的赋能者。