There was a time in history when owning objects was not a common, expected practice. In fact, owning things seems to have come after owning people. Before men acquired good sense, they owned women and by default, the products of the women’s labor. With this evolution of private property, the accumulation of things became a way for men to gain honor within the community. This new incentive resulted in some men losing their acquisitions to stronger men who took their possessions as spoils of conquest. For as Thorstein Veblen puts it in his writings about the leisure class, the motivation for acquisition is emulation. Men wanted, because other men possessed. This is Veblen’s theory of pecuniary emulation (Veblen 1899). It is the tendency of those
…show more content…
While, walking down the street in Birmingham with a group of co-workers, one gestured to man walking several yards ahead. She asked the group if anyone knew who the man was. None did. She stated that the man was Mr. Pizitz. For anyone growing up in Birmingham in the 1970’s, the name Pizitz is quite familiar. It was a very popular department store, and the Pizitz family is widely known to be very wealthy, even today. There was an immediate, if inaudible, reaction to the man. An attitude of deference towards him was offered even though none of us knew him personally. Wealth is power in this culture, and it motivates us to accumulate things we can afford, and things we cannot, in an effort to gain a piece of that power. It is through this conspicuous consumption that social stratification emerged. Each person is desiring to affiliate with a certain level, and generally speaking, it is usually not the one too which they actually belong. It is the conspicuous part that is important, for what good does it do to elevate one’s position if others cannot see the fruits of that …show more content…
These are cumbersome to use as silver must be polished, fine china is fragile, and neither can go in the dishwasher to be cleaned. The only reason to have and use such items is a show of status. Our culture promotes certain brands as status symbols. To sport these brands on one’s clothing is an outward attempt to display status. Women might say they prefer Coach or Luis Vuitton bags for their quality, but when pressed, many will admit to buy the overpriced brands for what they say to other women. It is the prestige that drives them to buy those brands when less esteemed brands could do the job of carrying personal items just as well. Apple has capitalized on this phenomenon in society through the release of each of its iPhone versions. Customers camp out in long lines, reserve phones months ahead of the release, so that they can be the first to sport the newest version of the device. Then they sit back and wait for the question. “Is that the new iPhone?” It is the validation of being able to answer in the affirmative that drives them to buy a phone that will be obsolete again in a year or
While, walking down the street in Birmingham with a group of co-workers, one gestured to man walking several yards ahead. She asked the group if anyone knew who the man was. None did. She stated that the man was Mr. Pizitz. For anyone growing up in Birmingham in the 1970’s, the name Pizitz is quite familiar. It was a very popular department store, and the Pizitz family is widely known to be very wealthy, even today. There was an immediate, if inaudible, reaction to the man. An attitude of deference towards him was offered even though none of us knew him personally. Wealth is power in this culture, and it motivates us to accumulate things we can afford, and things we cannot, in an effort to gain a piece of that power. It is through this conspicuous consumption that social stratification emerged. Each person is desiring to affiliate with a certain level, and generally speaking, it is usually not the one too which they actually belong. It is the conspicuous part that is important, for what good does it do to elevate one’s position if others cannot see the fruits of that …show more content…
These are cumbersome to use as silver must be polished, fine china is fragile, and neither can go in the dishwasher to be cleaned. The only reason to have and use such items is a show of status. Our culture promotes certain brands as status symbols. To sport these brands on one’s clothing is an outward attempt to display status. Women might say they prefer Coach or Luis Vuitton bags for their quality, but when pressed, many will admit to buy the overpriced brands for what they say to other women. It is the prestige that drives them to buy those brands when less esteemed brands could do the job of carrying personal items just as well. Apple has capitalized on this phenomenon in society through the release of each of its iPhone versions. Customers camp out in long lines, reserve phones months ahead of the release, so that they can be the first to sport the newest version of the device. Then they sit back and wait for the question. “Is that the new iPhone?” It is the validation of being able to answer in the affirmative that drives them to buy a phone that will be obsolete again in a year or