4 ms·

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 t

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
      the symbolic capital of a pen… (a system that inculcates desires for useless commodities)… (a status game in which useless things are feted). To me, a pen is utilitarian, not useless. I can see how the additional usefulness of a $4000 pen Vs a $400 pen could theoretically be questioned, but having no experience of using either, I wouldn't like to argue that case. I don't think there is an axiomatic answer about the 'cut-off' above: it's contextual. The reason I'm specifically questioning this is that your responses seem to demonstrate an axiomatic answer: $4000. That figure (and presumably any amount above $4000) is, in your words, "obviously utterly grotesque", but there's no indication how you came to that figure. in the global political, economic and cultural conditions in which we live the purchase of a $4000 pen is grotesque Are you saying that for everyone, the purchase of a $4000 pen is grotesque? That context does not matter once the sum reaches $4000? I appreciate there may be shades of gray, but is there a range where you would start to challenge this? Say, 10 times the median price for a pen in that particular location? What's justifying that figure of $4000, other than "it's obvious"? When it comes to challenging behaviour, and especially describing certain behaviour as "grotesque", it feels like there might be a better way to separate them. The numbers matter when it comes to discussing (and influencing/lobbying) policy. The world's richest 8 people have the same wealth as 50% of the world's population [1]. Is that grotesque? Bill Gates uses some of that wealth to help some of the poorest people in the world. Does that offset his grotesque wealth? Does that justify it? In the USA, a CEO earns 2,617 times the average salary for American workers [2]. Is that grotesque? In the UK, the average FTSE100 CEO earns 129 times their average employee. 20 years ago, that figure was only 45 times, or roughly a third of the current inequality [2]. Which is fairer? What could be done to make things more fair? These questions and discussions are important, because they can inform policy. For example, tax rates and bands - such as 90% tax rate on earnings over $X (which has been done in the past, but seems to be politically untenable at the moment). If you want to call certain spending grotesque, it's helpful to have a reasonable rationale for that figure. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/jan/16/worlds-eight-richest-people-have-same-wealth-as-poorest-50 https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/jan/16/w... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/29/business/britain-ceo-executive-pay.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/29/business/britain-ceo-exec...
- icebraining 9y ago
  When you buy something, part of the money you forfeit is used to pay for the resources used (including labor) and the rest is profit. Only the first part is actually negative for the world, the second is merely an accounting line, a delegation of some of your power to someone else. As these pens are likely to have a huge profit margin, the actual negative impact is small, and most of the money remains, ready to be used for the alleviation of the indigent. By the way, I never bought a product for showing off in my life. Wait, I lie: I bought a $30 tshirt because it had a cool version of the Debian logo. But otherwise, I don't have anything to rationalize :)
  - mcguire 9y ago
    Wait, paying for resources and labor is "negative for the world"?
    - icebraining 9y ago
      I meant that using up those resources to make an ornate pen is the negative for the world. The use of the word "paying" is just because the person is buying it, not making it themselves. I should make it concrete with an example. Say someone buys a $4000 pen, which has a 75% profit margin. Those $3000 were not wasted, they just moved from the buyer's bank account to the company owner's bank account, which could use them for anything, including helping the poor. Meanwhile, the $1000 went to pay for actual resources that were used up, and so in the POV that these pens are useless compared to helping the poor, that's the actual waste.
      - mewse 9y ago
        Were the resources used up, though? In your hypothetical, there's an (arguably) beautiful pen in the world, now, which wasn't there before. Surely that must have some value? Otherwise, all forms of human endeavor are kind of pointless and a net negative for the world, right? If we only count the costs and ignore the product of the work?
        9y ago

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
    the symbolic capital of a pen… (a system that inculcates desires for useless commodities)… (a status game in which useless things are feted). To me, a pen is utilitarian, not useless. I can see how the additional usefulness of a $4000 pen Vs a $400 pen could theoretically be questioned, but having no experience of using either, I wouldn't like to argue that case. I don't think there is an axiomatic answer about the 'cut-off' above: it's contextual. The reason I'm specifically questioning this is that your responses seem to demonstrate an axiomatic answer: $4000. That figure (and presumably any amount above $4000) is, in your words, "obviously utterly grotesque", but there's no indication how you came to that figure. in the global political, economic and cultural conditions in which we live the purchase of a $4000 pen is grotesque Are you saying that for everyone, the purchase of a $4000 pen is grotesque? That context does not matter once the sum reaches $4000? I appreciate there may be shades of gray, but is there a range where you would start to challenge this? Say, 10 times the median price for a pen in that particular location? What's justifying that figure of $4000, other than "it's obvious"? When it comes to challenging behaviour, and especially describing certain behaviour as "grotesque", it feels like there might be a better way to separate them. The numbers matter when it comes to discussing (and influencing/lobbying) policy. The world's richest 8 people have the same wealth as 50% of the world's population [1]. Is that grotesque? Bill Gates uses some of that wealth to help some of the poorest people in the world. Does that offset his grotesque wealth? Does that justify it? In the USA, a CEO earns 2,617 times the average salary for American workers [2]. Is that grotesque? In the UK, the average FTSE100 CEO earns 129 times their average employee. 20 years ago, that figure was only 45 times, or roughly a third of the current inequality [2]. Which is fairer? What could be done to make things more fair? These questions and discussions are important, because they can inform policy. For example, tax rates and bands - such as 90% tax rate on earnings over $X (which has been done in the past, but seems to be politically untenable at the moment). If you want to call certain spending grotesque, it's helpful to have a reasonable rationale for that figure. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/jan/16/worlds-eight-richest-people-have-same-wealth-as-poorest-50 https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/jan/16/w... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/29/business/britain-ceo-executive-pay.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/29/business/britain-ceo-exec...
icebraining 9y ago
When you buy something, part of the money you forfeit is used to pay for the resources used (including labor) and the rest is profit. Only the first part is actually negative for the world, the second is merely an accounting line, a delegation of some of your power to someone else. As these pens are likely to have a huge profit margin, the actual negative impact is small, and most of the money remains, ready to be used for the alleviation of the indigent. By the way, I never bought a product for showing off in my life. Wait, I lie: I bought a $30 tshirt because it had a cool version of the Debian logo. But otherwise, I don't have anything to rationalize :)
- mcguire 9y ago
  Wait, paying for resources and labor is "negative for the world"?
  - icebraining 9y ago
    I meant that using up those resources to make an ornate pen is the negative for the world. The use of the word "paying" is just because the person is buying it, not making it themselves. I should make it concrete with an example. Say someone buys a $4000 pen, which has a 75% profit margin. Those $3000 were not wasted, they just moved from the buyer's bank account to the company owner's bank account, which could use them for anything, including helping the poor. Meanwhile, the $1000 went to pay for actual resources that were used up, and so in the POV that these pens are useless compared to helping the poor, that's the actual waste.
    - mewse 9y ago
      Were the resources used up, though? In your hypothetical, there's an (arguably) beautiful pen in the world, now, which wasn't there before. Surely that must have some value? Otherwise, all forms of human endeavor are kind of pointless and a net negative for the world, right? If we only count the costs and ignore the product of the work?
      - 9y ago