From: firecat	Date: April 18th, 2012 09:04 pm (UTC)		(link)

You would seem to have a pretty good reason to use a MacBook Pro on the job, yeah.

	From: firecat	Date: April 18th, 2012 09:33 pm (UTC)		(link)

Yep, the cheapest Apple laptop is $1000 new.

	From: moominmuppet	Date: April 20th, 2012 01:47 am (UTC)		(link)

Yup. This, more than anything else, is why I never use MAC products. I'm _never_ in a financial position to buy them.

	From: firecat	Date: April 18th, 2012 09:36 pm (UTC)		(link)

the class signaling is not necessarily the reason someone has made a particular purchase, but it can still be a side effect.

Yeah, very true.

I wonder who acknowledges that they bought something as a status symbol.

	From: elisem	Date: April 18th, 2012 09:59 pm (UTC)		(link)

It might be interesting to post the two-headed question: "What's a status symbol, and do you have any?"

	From: firecat	Date: April 18th, 2012 10:13 pm (UTC)		(link)

Oh yeah!

	From: tiger_spot	Date: April 19th, 2012 12:24 am (UTC)		(link)

We declared ourselves yuppies when we bought the Art. (The Art is a metal sculpture that hangs on the wall and cost, er, somewhere between $100 and $500, I forget. We found it at one of the Art & Foodstuff Festivals, and brought it home on more or less a whim.) We bought it because it looks cool, and because we could afford it. Really the looking cool is the main part, but it does, inevitably, carry the message "We could afford this!" (as does our house, which I would say is the other main status-y thing we've got). At the time we got it, feeling comfortable spending that much (a) on something entirely decorative and not in any way practical and (b) without planning ahead & saving up for it was very new, and definitely felt like a change from our previous status, so we noticed the status-related aspects of the purchase more than we might notice the status-related signaling of a similar purchase now.

I think anything one has signals something about one's status, though, whether it's elderly socks with thin spots in the bottom or a school t-shirt or a wedding ring (this is all stuff I've got on right now), so I think I may not be understanding the "status symbol" concept quite the same way as some of the rest of the folks in this discussion.

Edited at 2012-04-19 12:25 am (UTC)

	From: graymalkin13	Date: April 19th, 2012 01:49 am (UTC)		(link)

it does, inevitably, carry the message "We could afford this!"

See, I'm not unaware of class politics, but I don't understand why that's an issue or a problem. Who's looking? Why is it any of their business? What gives them the right to judge you? Why should you spend time second-guessing your apparent class status? Who is hurt because you own something decorative?

I think anything one has signals something about one's status, though, whether it's elderly socks with thin spots in the bottom or a school t-shirt or a wedding ring

Absolutely!

	From: tiger_spot	Date: April 19th, 2012 06:36 pm (UTC)		(link)

Well, I don't think about the class signaling of stuff I have very often, because it doesn't much feed into why I have stuff.[1] But I've had enough experiences where other people have reacted to signals I wasn't intending to send that I try not to be entirely unaware of them anymore.


[1] There's an exception here around clothing, especially clothing I'm intending to wear to work. Part of what I want my work clothes to signal is "professional", which is in part class-tied. I'm not in a position where the actual or apparent cost of the clothing is relevant, but reasonably good fit and lack of stains and certain style issues are. Having the money to buy clothes that fit well, replace or repair them when stained or damaged, and choose styles that work for me is not universal. (On the top end here, I have fairly recently discovered the joys of alterations and wow, does that make my pants-wearing life better.)

	From: graymalkin13	Date: April 19th, 2012 08:06 pm (UTC)		(link)

I've had enough experiences where other people have reacted to signals I wasn't intending to send that I try not to be entirely unaware of them anymore.

I get this. I think I've experienced this, though possibly not in the same way you have. I am heavily tattooed and for the last 30 years have been wearing unusual ("gothic") clothes. People who live in a more conventional world, such as medical personnel, have been startled and put off by my appearance and I've had poorer (no pun intended) treatment from such people. The situation improved a bit when I stopped coloring my hair. Now it's gray and that seems to help people with conventional expectations relate to me a little better.

I spent 7 years in an extremely conservative town, where I was apparently the only woman who had visible tattoos. While I was there, I bought and carried a high-status purse (with no visible designer logo and a handsome design), specifically to signal that I wasn't to be treated as a freak. When I moved to a more enlightened city, that bag went into my closet, never to be used again. I hope.

I completely understand what you say about work clothing. When I worked in the corporate world, I chose my clothes carefully and toned down the "gothic-ness." But people still noticed that I was "weird." I was lucky to be in a department where a bit of eccentricity was acceptable and my ability to do my job well bought me credibility.

Hurray for alterations! :)

	From: firecat	Date: April 19th, 2012 02:25 am (UTC)		(link)

but it does, inevitably, carry the message "We could afford this!"

I personally wouldn't read that message just from seeing the piece of art, unless you were standing there telling me how much it cost. You could have gotten it at a yard sale for $5 for all I know. I'm not sure how common my viewpoint is.

I think anything one has can be interpreted as sending a message about status. But the message received seems to vary a lot. But for some things I guess it varies more than others.

	From: tiger_spot	Date: April 19th, 2012 06:47 pm (UTC)		(link)

Yeah, cost is one of those signals that's going to be received very differently. I would not particularly notice the BMW or the brand-name bag as Fancy Expensive Things unless they were pointed out, so if someone was trying to signal with the Fancy Expensive-ness of them that would be mostly lost on me.

	From: graymalkin13	Date: April 19th, 2012 01:41 am (UTC)		(link)

I wonder who acknowledges that they bought something as a status symbol

Anyone who did so with an ounce of self-awareness and honesty, I would expect. I wrote a huge long comment on this post and LJ said I was way over the character limit. I'm trying to decide whether to edit and post it or just toss it. One of the points I made was that I strongly believe there is no moral significance, right or wrong, in the decision to obtain a status symbol -- it's a basic human trait and everyone does it. And that no one knows why another person obtained a high-status item they are displaying (although making snap judgments about people is another human trait). And that being expected to feel guilty about having things I like is something I deeply resent.

Edited at 2012-04-19 01:42 am (UTC)

	From: firecat	Date: April 19th, 2012 02:25 am (UTC)		(link)

Send it to me if you still have it...

	From: graymalkin13	Date: April 19th, 2012 01:52 am (UTC)		(link)

HEE!!

- Apple employee for 15 years, though not recently...

	From: tiger_spot	Date: April 19th, 2012 12:08 am (UTC)		(link)

Is there anything that doesn't have other purposes? A bag has other purposes: you carry things in it and perhaps it's an accessory to your outfit. A car has other purposes: you get from place to place, maybe it has good gas mileage (e.g. Prius, which I keep seeing referred to as a status thing in a dismissive sort of way) or it's really comfortable or whatever. Art has other purposes: you like looking at it or it's an investment or it goes with the couch and the wall looked boring. Charitable donations, even the kind where your name goes on a brick or a building, have other purposes. Conspicuous food consumption (truffles or pate or really fancy cheese or expensive wine) presumably tastes good, or at least interesting.

I mean, there's a point where you can look at any of those things and say that the cost per marginal value is so high that you must be looking at spending for the sake of spending, rather than at what the person's decision would be if all of the available options cost the same, but I don't know that that's an objectively determinable point.

I feel weirdly like I'm defending the existence of high-end luxury goods. This is strange because I don't, as a rule, like high-end luxury goods (except for some art, and some furniture). YKIOK, IJNMK?

	From: graymalkin13	Date: April 19th, 2012 02:01 am (UTC)		(link)

I mean, there's a point where you can look at any of those things and say that the cost per marginal value is so high that you must be looking at spending for the sake of spending, rather than at what the person's decision would be if all of the available options cost the same, but I don't know that that's an objectively determinable point.

Use Donald Trump as a yardstick...

I feel weirdly like I'm defending the existence of high-end luxury goods.

Most high-end luxury goods don't interest me, but if someone got upset because they exist, I suppose I would "defend" them too. I would point out that people have always made and desired fine things. Until fairly recently, only the very, very wealthy had any access to luxury goods. These days they are available to a much larger segment of the population. If no one is harmed in the making or consumption of the things, I don't see a problem.

	From: firecat	Date: April 19th, 2012 02:40 am (UTC)		(link)

Until fairly recently, only the very, very wealthy had any access to luxury goods. These days they are available to a much larger segment of the population.

Good point.

	From: dr_brat	Date: April 19th, 2012 03:18 pm (UTC)		(link)

Which struck me as strange until I, given that there is a greater division of income now than ever. But then I remembered how much debt many people incur in order to access those luxury goods. It's a strange world we live in.

	From: firecat	Date: April 19th, 2012 06:29 pm (UTC)		(link)

But then I remembered how much debt many people incur in order to access those luxury goods.

True. Some of the debt is in service of maintaining a lifestyle suitable to one's profession or the class one aspires to.

	From: firecat	Date: April 19th, 2012 02:36 am (UTC)		(link)

I just figured out one reason I resist thinking of a Macbook Pro as a status symbol: a Mac laptop is a pretty specialized thing. A person might need that exact thing for a number of reasons.

I find it more difficult to imagine why a person would need a Vuitton purse per se, as opposed to some other purse.

(I'm not saying it's wrong to buy something you don't need. But it makes more sense that such a thing might send a message about class or status or money.)

	From: graymalkin13	Date: April 19th, 2012 03:03 am (UTC)		(link)

I find it more difficult to imagine why a person would need a Vuitton purse per se, as opposed to some other purse.

I think Louis Vuitton bags and luggage are ugly as sin, like most goods with designers' names on them -- and Vuitton is uglier than most. However, someone else might have a different aesthetic preference -- might even think it would be funny to carry an LV bag ironically since they wear punk or hip clothes of some sort. We're talking "want" here, not "need." Someone who truly believes she needs LV is probably so desperate to fit in with her peers that she can't think straight. Or she may genuinely believe that it's the highest quality bag in the world -- who can say?

This is what I wrote about the LV purse in the Unposted Comment:

"Personally, I'm put off by status displays of certain kinds, like Louis Vuitton handbags or clothes with designers' names on them -- but I think that's because IMO, those things are ugly. So at first glance, I'm predisposed to see a person who has an LV bag as tasteless (i.e. she has different aesthetics than mine) and conventional, which, rightly or wrongly, makes me scornful (for as long as I think about it, which is a nanosecond). I also know that this is a first impression and doesn't tell me much about who she really is -- although I'm less likely to try to get to know her because of that awful LV bag."

(I'm not saying it's wrong to buy something you don't need. But it makes more sense that such a thing might send a message about class or status or money.)

Oh, certainly they do. It's just that I don't see anything inherently wrong about that. Lots of people are obsessed with class and status and money... and I simply don't hang out with them.

By the way, I don't think LV bags really impress anyone but the relatively clueless people who buy them. To those in the know, they're actually gauche -- any New Jersey socialite could have a Vuitton knock-off she bought on the street. Common as muck. Old money uses plain, practical goods that show the wear of decades, like the unassuming, anonymous-looking leather bookbag I've used as a "briefcase" since 1982. Still going strong. I'm not any kind of money, but I like things to last. (Yes, it's a Coach bag. I bought it because my rich friend said it was the best quality around and I liked the look of it. Truth!) Decades of marketing have really confused people about what indicates high status, and "status symbols" are not always what they appear.

Edited at 2012-04-19 03:08 am (UTC)

	From: firecat	Date: April 19th, 2012 04:52 am (UTC)		(link)

Yeah, I get (abstractly) why someone would want a particular brand or style of purse.

I think aethetics and class are pretty closely intertwined for many people. Not necessarily all, though.

I don't think that there's anything wrong with sending a message about class. Good thing, because apparently one can't avoid doing so.

There are things wrong with the class system as a whole, but that's a different bag of fish.

	From: graymalkin13	Date: April 19th, 2012 09:24 am (UTC)		(link)

I think aethetics and class are pretty closely intertwined for many people.

That's a very interesting idea. It would be cool to do a psychology (sociology?) experiment, showing people pictures of imaginary products (designed to subtly include visual elements of high- and low-end real products, such as general shape) and asking them which ones they preferred, then comparing the results with the test subjects' financial standing and so on.

I don't think that there's anything wrong with sending a message about class. Good thing, because apparently one can't avoid doing so.

That's right, we can't. I recommend Paul Fussell's book Class, which talks about a lot of this stuff. It's not a recent book, and Fussell is a snotty Anglophile with definite class bias, but it's quite interesting nonetheless. (The Anglophile angle is that he thinks the English do everything better than Americans and that it's high-status, and desirable, for Americans to emulate the English.)

There are things wrong with the class system as a whole, but that's a different bag of fish.

Yes, there are. And when it comes to luxury goods, as with any other goods, there are humane (e.g. sweatshop) and environmental concerns as well. There are an awful lot of bags of fish.


Edited at 2012-04-19 09:30 am (UTC)

	From: firecat	Date: April 19th, 2012 06:17 pm (UTC)		(link)

I think the experiment you describe would show things like a person's class background and their class aspirations, as well as what their current class might be.

I read Fussell's book in the 80s. I should re-read it.

	From: graymalkin13	Date: April 19th, 2012 08:21 pm (UTC)		(link)

I think the experiment you describe would show things like a person's class background and their class aspirations, as well as what their current class might be.

Yes! It would be very interesting.

I feel like I have no class aspirations. I just want what I want because I like it -- like sushi, which is probably a class marker for having a certain amount of money. In the city where I live, there are lots of cheap sushi restaurants (like, $1 per piece), but I don't go to them because their sushi tastes horrible and I don't trust them to handle food safely. I only go to "reputable" (expensive) restaurants, and when I can't afford to go to those, I don't eat sushi. Maybe aspiring to have enough money to eat sushi frequently is a class aspiration. I just haven't thought about it that way.

As for Fussell, I've enjoyed all of his books. One thing I remember from Class is his stipulation that having a fishtank in your house is a sign of lower class. HA! I've had fishtanks all my (middle-class) life, and they've always looked nice and cost a bundle. I suppose the class marker there is the size of the fishtank and the quality of its contents. Does it have a bubbling mermaid in it? LOW CLASS!

	From: firecat	Date: April 19th, 2012 09:24 pm (UTC)		(link)

My class aspirations are to never set foot in a country club again.

I don't think wanting to have enough money is a class aspiration per se, but how much money a person considers to be "enough," and what they buy with it, and where the money comes from tie in with class, I think.

having a fishtank in your house is a sign of lower class.

I seem to recall that although I agreed with Fussell's general idea, that there were multiple classes that were associated with certain particular things, I disagreed with a bunch of the specifics. Fishtanks are something I don't associate with class.

	From: graymalkin13	Date: April 19th, 2012 09:48 pm (UTC)		(link)

I have never set foot in a country club, and hope never to do so. :-)

I don't think wanting to have enough money is a class aspiration per se, but how much money a person considers to be "enough," and what they buy with it, and where the money comes from tie in with class, I think.

I agree.

I seem to recall that although I agreed with Fussell's general idea, that there were multiple classes that were associated with certain particular things, I disagreed with a bunch of the specifics. Fishtanks are something I don't associate with class.

Yes -- Fussell is a crank and some of the specifics are silly -- probably even more so these days. Actually, I think I remember reading somewhere that Fussell meant the book to be satiric/humorous, which is weird because I think of him as an absolutely humorless dude.

	From: bibliofile	Date: April 20th, 2012 10:17 am (UTC)		(link)

Alas, I know some health inspectors who would tell you that the cost of the restaurant is no guarantee of sanitation -- but that's yet another kettle of fish.

I think that class culture affects a lot of our choices. And yes, part of it is dictated by what one can afford (thinking purses, not sushi). It's the choices we make about & beyond need that show our cultural tendencies the most, I think. For Mac laptops, I think of them as status symbols when a cheaper model/brand will do, but you like the Macs better for nonessential reasons. (Mileage varies wildly, mind.)

	From: graymalkin13	Date: April 20th, 2012 09:25 pm (UTC)		(link)

Alas, I know some health inspectors who would tell you that the cost of the restaurant is no guarantee of sanitation -- but that's yet another kettle of fish.

Very true. It would be naive to judge a restaurant by price alone. With raw fish especially, proper food handling is a necessity. I look for certain signs of quality in a sushi restaurant regardless of the price. In a city full of sushi restaurants, I've tried about 7 (3 cheaper ones, 4 more expensive ones) and there are 2 I consider reliable. Sadly, both of them are in the expensive category.

	From: ailbhe	Date: April 19th, 2012 07:27 am (UTC)		(link)

That was kind of my point. Having a computer that suits my life, and a nice bike, and particular clothes and shoes, are all perfectly reasonable things within my life which make sense, practically and economically - and people looking at me can make *reasonably accurate* judgments on my social standing based on the material goods I own. That doesn't make *any* of them status *symbols*, but that I use them all for useful utilitarian things doesn't stop them being status *markers*.

	From: firecat	Date: April 19th, 2012 02:38 am (UTC)		(link)

Those are some of the reasons I have Apple things, plus I've had them since 1984 and I'm used to them. But I did get an Android phone instead of an iPhone because I can't imagine paying $80 for cell phone service. (I wonder what it says about me that I don't mind paying for gadgets but I do mind paying high monthly service fees.)

	From: firecat	Date: April 19th, 2012 06:26 pm (UTC)		(link)

Those are very good points.