More nuanced approach to statistical aspects of expenditure needed

The author spends a lot of time analysing different expenditure data. However the rigid brackets - housing, travel, conspicuous consumption, inconspicuous consumption lack nuance. That is because a home may be ‘conspicuous conspicuous consumption, and hiring a gardener/nanny (classified as inconspicuous consumption) may in fact be a status symbol when talked about to friends.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

Ambitious, but falls short

120 years ago, economist Thorstein Veblen published his “Theory of the Leisure Class”, a critique of conspicuous consumption and the upper classes that organized the social system in a way that enabled them to indulge in leisure activities while the majority of people worked to earn a basic living. The way they lived and the things they consumed led to the term “Veblen” goods, something familiar to all students of economics as products whose demand go up rather than down when their prices go up. Now American academic Elizabeth Currid-Halkett sets out to write a modern day version, updating the behaviours of the modern day elite, termed the aspirational class.
As the real cost of most goods and products has fallen significantly over the past century, she argues that the new elite have replaced conspicuous consumption with inconspicuous consumption, which are still expensive pursuits with no real gains. This is an interesting concept, given the passage of time and changed mores since Veblen’s work, and the fact about the affordability of most forms of material conspicuous consumption to most people today.
Like Veblen, Currid-Halkett extends largely accurate observations of current (and then current) social norms and spending patterns to their impact on broader society. But she then goes ahead and states that this “democratization” of consumer goods, that has provided more goods to the middle class, is to their detriment as they spend more on them and therefore have less to spend on things that will pave the way for inter-generational upward mobility! This by itself sounds like an elitist critique of the masses. But to make matters worse, she then most confoundingly blames her “new elite” for precisely doing the things that she blames others for NOT doing – for spending less on goods and more on things that can lead to a more “fulfilled” life and personal growth, and for usually marrying like-minded people and trying to give their children a head start by educating them earlier and in more rounded ways
But unlike the old elite, who were rightly accused of wanting to perpetuate their dominance and exclude others based on birth and family ties, the author’s own words state that this new elite is grounded in meritocracy (as opposed to birthright), believes in the acquisition of knowledge and culture (as opposed to goods), works longer hours and is less clearly defined by economic positions (socioeconomically heterogeneous).
Hence, unlike Veblen, who made a coherent argument on the negative impact on society of the leisure class, Currid-Halkett’s attempts at a similar portrayal comes across an unnecessary attempt at building a theory out of observations, and then shrilly assigning blame on her “new elite” based on this (non)theory.
The book does have some interesting chapters and observations. The description of changes in the means of signaling status, which have become more subtle and nuanced, is interesting. The observation of how the focus has shifted from conspicuous consumption to “conspicuous production” – think limited edition goods, organic foodstuffs with clear provenance and the like - and “inconspicuous consumption” is also very insightful. And the description of practices (signifying inconspicuous consumption) such as practicing yoga or gymming regularly, drinking almond milk, taking kids to hockey rather than soccer, breast feeding babies longer, and reusing grocery bags every week are markers of status.
But the question remains, what’s the big problem with this? Apparently, these lead to higher inequality, which is the primary grouse. But apart from stating that inequality has gone up as the definition of the leisure class has changed, there is nothing here to suggest a clear cause and effect pattern. To impugn that this is bad for society and they be discouraged from such behavior is simply absurd. As is the author’s judgement that this new elite has “appropriated” certain behaviours and goods (such as those mentioned above).
Sadly, this is a book that may appeal to populists and nativists, as a matter of convenience since they can use these arguments to justify their policies and thoughts.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

1 person found this helpful