5 ms·

That's an odd take on the butter scenario. The obvious answer to your dad's question is "because although churning your own butter is not necessary, it can make

That's an odd take on the butter scenario. The obvious answer to your dad's question is "because although churning your own butter is not necessary, it can make a fresher and more interesting-tasting product than mass produced butter you buy at a store". When I look for restaurants that churn their own butter, I'm not looking to show off my status as someone who can afford unnecessary labor, I am actually "just doing things"; I am just looking for interesting and tasty food with interesting and tasty butter, I'm not trying to cultivate an image of myself as a foodie or rich person or avoiding being mistaken for a day-laborer. I don't know why you've re-framed it into a status signal. Did you really value churning your own butter as a pure status signal and not for the benefits of artisinal butter?

notfromhere 4y ago
It's both. To that dad, making your own butter was not a cultural signal showing your dedication to getting good flavor from butter, it just meant you were poor. If you could buy butter at the store, you were rich. As someone who grew up in a second world country, things like making your own butter or having your own chickens were just a sign of poverty, not a signal of distinct taste.
- themacguffinman 4y ago
  That's not a status signal, it has practical non-status value. It can be fresher and taste better. You don't need to be upper or middle class to enjoy the taste of self-made butter, anyone, including the dad, can enjoy it. I'm not trying to imply that I have a higher status because I prefer the taste of artisanal butter. Just saying that out loud sounds absurd to just about anyone. What, poor/low-status people can't taste artisanal butter cultures? Poor people in Western countries where even the poor buy supermarket produce will sometimes comment on the poor quality of modern mass market produce. You don't need to be in a different class or playing status games to taste the difference. If I look for an artisanal food, it's because it tastes better. Edit: probably a more direct rebuttal is that the accusation is "They have an image they try to cultivate, even if only unconsciously" which means the person intends to signal who they are. Saying something is a "sign of poverty" doesn't mean anyone is cultivating an image or playing status games. It's not a game or a message to be visibly poor.

notfromhere 4y ago

It's both. To that dad, making your own butter was not a cultural signal showing your dedication to getting good flavor from butter, it just meant you were poor. If you could buy butter at the store, you were rich. As someone who grew up in a second world country, things like making your own butter or having your own chickens were just a sign of poverty, not a signal of distinct taste.

themacguffinman 4y ago
That's not a status signal, it has practical non-status value. It can be fresher and taste better. You don't need to be upper or middle class to enjoy the taste of self-made butter, anyone, including the dad, can enjoy it. I'm not trying to imply that I have a higher status because I prefer the taste of artisanal butter. Just saying that out loud sounds absurd to just about anyone. What, poor/low-status people can't taste artisanal butter cultures? Poor people in Western countries where even the poor buy supermarket produce will sometimes comment on the poor quality of modern mass market produce. You don't need to be in a different class or playing status games to taste the difference. If I look for an artisanal food, it's because it tastes better. Edit: probably a more direct rebuttal is that the accusation is "They have an image they try to cultivate, even if only unconsciously" which means the person intends to signal who they are. Saying something is a "sign of poverty" doesn't mean anyone is cultivating an image or playing status games. It's not a game or a message to be visibly poor.