5 ms·

Physical possessions like this pen is just so vain, shallow, and meaningless. Have you thought this through, to the point where you have a cut-off? Is it the

Physical possessions like this pen is just so vain, shallow, and meaningless. Have you thought this through, to the point where you have a cut-off? Is it the cheapest? Is a 12-cent biro vain, because there's a 10-cent biro? Is it a $10 fountain pen, because you could have bought a cheap BIC? Is a $30 fountain pen OK, but a $50 fountain pen is shallow and meaningless? Where do you draw the line?

Emma_Goldman 9y ago
There is no cut-off line because symbolic capital is not something that has a mathematical formula. The ways in which people express status varies from social group to group, and from situation to situation. The idea that a claim is only valid if it is a closed proposition that applies under all circumstances is a bad one. You need to undertake an ethnography, sociological study, etc., to understand how commodities function in cultural hierarchies in any particular case.
- manarth 9y ago
  The ways in which people express status varies from social group to group So does this notion only apply to people who demonstrate this status? Does it apply to someone who buys an expensive fountain pen, keeps it in their desk drawer, and uses it to write, but doesn't talk/boast about it? It seems a bit of a sweeping statement to claim that owning a pen is vain, and could use a bit more clarification/justification to show the basis for making a claim like that. If any such claim relies on ethnographic or sociological studies, then wouldn't it be appropriate to cite those when making such a claim? Without that, such a claim could justifiably be described as reverse snobbery.
  - Emma_Goldman 9y ago
    I never claimed that 'owning a pen is vain'. I said that one can only understand its cultural significance through careful sociological reflection. That is a truism to me. "If any such claim relies on ethnographic or sociological studies, then wouldn't it be appropriate to cite those when making such a claim?" I think you might have wrong end of the stick. I have no idea if there are any studies on the cultural capital of pens. The point is a general methodological one - we can only understand the 'status' that any given commodity is supposed to possess by first investigating the particular ways in which it functions in a definite social group. "So does this notion only apply to people who demonstrate this status?" Everyone is always 'demonstrating status' all of the time so I hardly think this is enough to condemn someone. But to get to the point: obviously buying a $4000 pen is a conspicuous symbol of status by which to differentiate yourself from other people. IMO it is utterly grotesque: in a world based on radical inequality where billions of people live miserable, indigent lives, buying a pen for that amount suggests that you care more about appearing to be rich that about helping anyone. It is a farcical, individualist act of petty self-congratulation.
    - manarth 9y ago
      I never claimed that 'owning a pen is vain'. My comment referred to the GP's statement: Physical possessions like this pen is just so vain, shallow, and meaningless. When I ask "Where is the cut-off", it's to prompt thought, to draw out an answer to the question: where is that cut-off? "obviously buying a $4000 pen…is utterly grotesque" So where should the cut-off be? Is it $3500? $350? Where does the price of a pen become grotesque? If $4000 is obviously grotesque, where does that value statement become less obvious? Isn't that worth thinking about? Another aspect to that debate are those who didn't buy the pen. For example, those gifted it in a will, or who win it as a prize. Or even of those who do buy it, perhaps an aspiring writer, who spends the entirety of their advance on this pen - not to signify or demonstrate their wealth - but as relief that they've finally been signed, as proof to themselves that they're not an imposter. Sure, it might not be the most practical use of their money, but does it justify the ad hominem of "grotesque"? Yes, there is vast inequality in the world, and $4000 would be an enormous amount of money to a vast number of people. But if that's the argument, it doesn't matter whether it's a pen, a car, a house, a painting, an antiquity, a rare MtG card; the argument simply becomes: is it grotesque to spend $X when there's a cheaper alternative?
      - Emma_Goldman 9y ago
        OK, there's two things here. First, the symbolic capital of a pen. Second, its role in political economy. IMO both are relevant to the evaluation of anybody who buys the $4000 pen. There is a distributional element (the money is better spent on those who actually need it), an ideological element (you live in a system that inculcates desires for useless commodities), a cultural element (you are playing a status game in which useless things are feted), and a character element (the third & to some extent first of these things suggests that those who buy $4000 pen's are terrible, vain people) I already addressed why I don't think there is an axiomatic answer about the 'cut-off' above: it's contextual. But clearly (in my mind, anyway) in the global political, economic and cultural conditions in which we live the purchase of a $4000 pen is grotesque.
        manarth 9y ago
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
myrandomcomment 9y ago
It's a personal thing. I have two pens that where ~$200 each. I do not think I would ever spend more. Another item like this would be a watch. I love watches, but I will never buy the one I really want (it's not over the top at around $8k) because I cannot justify to myself morally that number. I would always look at it and think what that money could do if I gave it to charity (my wife and I setup a charity fund after my last startup hit). Walking into the schools in Menlo Park and PA where they bus kids over from East PA and finding the cards on the tree at Christmas where a kid just wants a pair of shoes is always a reality check for this bubble we live in called Silcon Valley. For us, we always make sure that there are no cards on tree by Christmas. I guess that is my cut-off. That being said, these pens are a work of art and as such I have a great deal of apprication for them and their creators.

Emma_Goldman 9y ago

There is no cut-off line because symbolic capital is not something that has a mathematical formula. The ways in which people express status varies from social group to group, and from situation to situation. The idea that a claim is only valid if it is a closed proposition that applies under all circumstances is a bad one. You need to undertake an ethnography, sociological study, etc., to understand how commodities function in cultural hierarchies in any particular case.

manarth 9y ago
The ways in which people express status varies from social group to group So does this notion only apply to people who demonstrate this status? Does it apply to someone who buys an expensive fountain pen, keeps it in their desk drawer, and uses it to write, but doesn't talk/boast about it? It seems a bit of a sweeping statement to claim that owning a pen is vain, and could use a bit more clarification/justification to show the basis for making a claim like that. If any such claim relies on ethnographic or sociological studies, then wouldn't it be appropriate to cite those when making such a claim? Without that, such a claim could justifiably be described as reverse snobbery.
- Emma_Goldman 9y ago
  I never claimed that 'owning a pen is vain'. I said that one can only understand its cultural significance through careful sociological reflection. That is a truism to me. "If any such claim relies on ethnographic or sociological studies, then wouldn't it be appropriate to cite those when making such a claim?" I think you might have wrong end of the stick. I have no idea if there are any studies on the cultural capital of pens. The point is a general methodological one - we can only understand the 'status' that any given commodity is supposed to possess by first investigating the particular ways in which it functions in a definite social group. "So does this notion only apply to people who demonstrate this status?" Everyone is always 'demonstrating status' all of the time so I hardly think this is enough to condemn someone. But to get to the point: obviously buying a $4000 pen is a conspicuous symbol of status by which to differentiate yourself from other people. IMO it is utterly grotesque: in a world based on radical inequality where billions of people live miserable, indigent lives, buying a pen for that amount suggests that you care more about appearing to be rich that about helping anyone. It is a farcical, individualist act of petty self-congratulation.
  - manarth 9y ago
    I never claimed that 'owning a pen is vain'. My comment referred to the GP's statement: Physical possessions like this pen is just so vain, shallow, and meaningless. When I ask "Where is the cut-off", it's to prompt thought, to draw out an answer to the question: where is that cut-off? "obviously buying a $4000 pen…is utterly grotesque" So where should the cut-off be? Is it $3500? $350? Where does the price of a pen become grotesque? If $4000 is obviously grotesque, where does that value statement become less obvious? Isn't that worth thinking about? Another aspect to that debate are those who didn't buy the pen. For example, those gifted it in a will, or who win it as a prize. Or even of those who do buy it, perhaps an aspiring writer, who spends the entirety of their advance on this pen - not to signify or demonstrate their wealth - but as relief that they've finally been signed, as proof to themselves that they're not an imposter. Sure, it might not be the most practical use of their money, but does it justify the ad hominem of "grotesque"? Yes, there is vast inequality in the world, and $4000 would be an enormous amount of money to a vast number of people. But if that's the argument, it doesn't matter whether it's a pen, a car, a house, a painting, an antiquity, a rare MtG card; the argument simply becomes: is it grotesque to spend $X when there's a cheaper alternative?
    - Emma_Goldman 9y ago
      OK, there's two things here. First, the symbolic capital of a pen. Second, its role in political economy. IMO both are relevant to the evaluation of anybody who buys the $4000 pen. There is a distributional element (the money is better spent on those who actually need it), an ideological element (you live in a system that inculcates desires for useless commodities), a cultural element (you are playing a status game in which useless things are feted), and a character element (the third & to some extent first of these things suggests that those who buy $4000 pen's are terrible, vain people) I already addressed why I don't think there is an axiomatic answer about the 'cut-off' above: it's contextual. But clearly (in my mind, anyway) in the global political, economic and cultural conditions in which we live the purchase of a $4000 pen is grotesque.
      - manarth 9y ago
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

myrandomcomment 9y ago

It's a personal thing. I have two pens that where ~$200 each. I do not think I would ever spend more. Another item like this would be a watch. I love watches, but I will never buy the one I really want (it's not over the top at around $8k) because I cannot justify to myself morally that number. I would always look at it and think what that money could do if I gave it to charity (my wife and I setup a charity fund after my last startup hit). Walking into the schools in Menlo Park and PA where they bus kids over from East PA and finding the cards on the tree at Christmas where a kid just wants a pair of shoes is always a reality check for this bubble we live in called Silcon Valley. For us, we always make sure that there are no cards on tree by Christmas. I guess that is my cut-off. That being said, these pens are a work of art and as such I have a great deal of apprication for them and their creators.