Notes on Conspicuous Consumption
Table of Contents
Note: This essay is incomplete and a work in progress. Sections may be missing, arguments may be disjointed.
The term “elite” falls at an intersection of both cultural and economic class. What this means is that elites often have to distinguish each other via social signalling. This could be via shared language, norms, and in-jokes, or it could be via a shared interest in “refined” topics. How one talked in a parlor versus a bar are worlds apart because the people in there tended to be worlds apart.
Signalling has two purposes: one, to allow elites to readily identify each other. People naturally tend to find chemistry with those of a similar background, but also the sort of networking, favor-trading, and confidentiality that occurs among elites can only occur because they can trust those exchanges to be between peers. Two, it allows elites to define and separate themselves from the masses. Traditionally, refinement was seen both as a justification for aristocratic rule and its vector of socializing elites into their necessary functions.
But that raises a question: what separates the elites? Signalling can’t insist upon itself: it has to be downstream of some real foundation for class division. The precise answer to this question has changed since the olden days, but one thing hasn’t: the link between class and wealth. Conspicuous consumption acts to translate that wealth into socially recognizable terms. Old nobles used to love the color blue – both for their art and their clothes. Why? Because blue was an incredibly difficult dye to find in nature and acquiring it was incredibly expensive. By wearing blue, you were setting yourself apart from the masses and reinforcing the idea that you are to be treated differently.
Kitsch
Everything above is pretty obvious: it’s the terms in which we traditionally (and broadly) tend to envision class. The continual fascination we as a culture have with the tales of 18th century nobility (Russian, French, etc. doesn’t matter) in large part I suspect stems from how overt everything is. The rule of the king is self-evident, class divides are static and discrete, social order is crystallized in religious myth. Explicit domination is often a lot more mentally assimilable than implicit.
It’s also environments like the feudal one where social signalling is relatively straightforward. Gaudy, ornate details made of expensive materials laid out in intricate ways is more than enough of an aesthetic. It was during this era that plumpness was considered attractive: it pointed to a woman that was well-fed. With peasants who stuck to their rags, setting oneself apart didn’t take much work.
Capitalism kind of threw a massive wrench in this. Whereas the aristocrats of old got their wealth via relatively static means (land ownership, familial inheritance, etc.) the bourgeoisie were merchants. Their rise brought with them real widespread class mobility. By taking the right gamble at the right time, you could ride one of many industrial waves into the upper echelons of society.
Wealth was being produced at rates that displaced even the most secure of dynasties, and the cycle of innovation was producing new goods at a rate never-before-seen.
[THE FOLLOWING ARE UNPOLISHED NOTES]
-
Unlike the aristocracy, which could define and socialize themselves in terms of their breeding, the bourgeoisie entirely comes out of money. This limits their options in terms of how they can interface with and derive meaning out of the world.
-
Particular to capitalism and its distribution of wealth is the emergence of a distinct “middle class”. This middle class tends to be highly status-insecure. They’re continually looking to ape the fashions of the upper class (as it yields them the social benefits of conspicuous consumption).
-
This class is also highly valuable as a consumption base: their combined wealth is necessary for companies to tap into in order to keep consumer demand chugging along.
-
Combine both the above observations with capitalism’s impact on industrial production: countless goods, styles, and fashions previously “rare” could now be mass-produced, at rates exponentially cheaper than before.
-
Suddenly, exotic dishes, elaborate trims, and ornate decorations are widely available. Fashions based on elegance lose their original class-character, and with enough repetition, become tacky.
-
These are the material origins of kitsch as a phenomenon. Fashions become entirely stripped of their context and meaning, as the consumption market reduces art down to a shortcut for social signalling.
-
This transcends any one style: another key characteristic of capitalism is ‘creative destruction’. In aesthetics, this manifests in increasingly rapid trend cycles (just look at the present-day phenomenon of micro-trends) to keep up with the acceleration of economic growth and consumer demand.
-
Fashions cycle in and out, but not arbitrarily. They’re almost always connected to some sort of meaning.
-
Capitalism is parasitic on meaning, it’s incapable of producing its own. Commodities lack an intrinsic meaning outside of their literal form: in order to fuel the hyperconsumption (well above the base needs of consumers) to keep economic growth rolling, it’s necessary to find higher causes for consumption.
-
In its nascent forms, it took to leeching on traditional aesthetics, fashions, and imagery as fuel for “the ideal”, but even that would go out of season.
-
The upper classes (being more likely to easily satisfy their consumption needs) feel this pressure more strongly, and it manifests in class-insecurity. They envy the lower classes for their percieved “authenticity” and will often borrow fashions from either them or countercultural movements. Thus the cycle restarts.
- Example 1: The assimilation of rap, a musical genre which originally based itself on authenticity, realism, working-class roots, and minimalism into mainstream culture. The Hamilton musical fad is a pretty stark example of how fashions can funnel upwards in society, not just downwards.
- Example 2: Hippie culture as a fad within Silicon Valley. The attraction to eastern spirituality, the obsession with minimalism, the wedding of technical solutions with ‘organic’ marketing, and the complete transformation of Burning Man from an anarchist experiment into an elite hangout spot all point towards some search for meaning.
The Future of Conspicuous Consumption
- The problem is, even that eventually runs through the trend cycle. Goods are just way too cheap to produce with modern supply chains.
- It’s oft remarked that the present generation of elites are doing away with signalling via goods in favor of seeking out novel, one-of-a-kind experiences as an outlet for their conspicuous consumption.
- But I don’t think goods-based consumption is going away: the rise of nerd culture as a fashion in the past few years points to the opposite.
- The increased interest in showcasing collectibles such as ita bags or blind-box toys, the selling of graded retro video games for record prices, etc.
- There’s a lot of focus put on collectibles that can’t be mass-produced: originals, sealed boxes, artificially limited runs, old stuff, etc. The scarcity bestows the item with that “extra meaning” and also makes them highly attractive vehicles for financial speculation.
- There’s a heavy emphasis on collection in nerd spaces, traditionally used as a way to signal one’s own dedication to a specific hobby through committing so much time and money. Historically, these spaces have been niche enough to the point where the social benefit gained isn’t enough of a motivator to go and do this for most people.
- But, that in turn creates an air of authenticity: there’s a genuineness with which nerds like the stuff they like. Problem is, this opens the door to “nerdiness” becoming a positive trait to signal – there’s status to be had.
- Is this cycle of constantly finding new categories of goods to chase down sustainable? In the long term, no, there’s only so many new ideas humans can come up with and so many types of goods we can produce.
- We’re already starting to see fashions repeat (just look at how frequently ’80s motifs have been revived in music).
- There’s a certain irony in that everything we do to try and escape the consumption cycle ends up being recuperated into it. There’s value I think in taking an openly hostile (rather than simply countercultural) position, speaking bluntly and directly, and letting go of the need for a “revolutionary aesthetic”.
- Maybe the left’s preoccupation with art is counterproductive?