3 ms·
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 poo
by 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 agoThat'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.