Having decided to take photos to illustrate economic themes during the course of a walk by the River Nevern in Newport, Pembrokeshire last week, there was more to see than a red fishing boat. Take these two houses, for example:
The style and positioning of these two suggest one thing, which is that they are intended to represent conspicuous consumption. The style, location, and obvious desire to be noticed implicit in both really cannot imply anything else.
The concept of conspicuous consumption was first noted by the Norwegian economist Thorstein Veblen in his 1899 book, The Theory of the Leisure Class. Veblen used the term to describe spending whose primary purpose was to signal wealth, social status, and prestige. He suggested that in class-based societies, the wealthy undertake conspicuous spending with the aim of differentiating themselves from those they consider to be lower classes. The spending is intended to indicate social distinction, and in extreme cases does little more than that.
The two houses are not extreme cases: they can, I presume, function as homes. They might, of course, be second homes. But they are still designed to stick out, and that is precisely what is conspicuous about them when it comes to consumption. The whole intention of their design is that they are meant to stick out, and they do. As conspicuous consumption they do, as a result, succeed.
There will, of course, be those who say that I am pursuing the politics of envy by noting this. Those who do should take note that they are simply defending the implicit class, or economic, warfare always present in conspicuous consumption. They are, by making the accusation, suggesting the existence of the very thing that conspicuous consumption is intended to produce, which is social division. Conspicuous consumption exists to induce class envy: that is its whole purpose.
We have paid a heavy price for conspicuous consumption.
Climate change is one such price. Much of what has driven it is conspicuous consumption.
Social division, and resulting mental illness - on all sides, because the stress arising from conspicuous consumption afflicts those aspiring to undertake it as much as it does those unable to meet their needs - is a massive cost.
So too is the breakdown in the concept of society a cost.
And all of this has been promoted, exaggerated and exploited by neoliberal thinking which suggests that no one can ever conspicuously consume enough because there is always another excess that is possible if only you ignore the constraints that really exist in this world, which is what neoliberalism also does.
Veblen was right to note conspicuous consumption. If we are to live in a sustainable world, we cannot afford it, but that's just fine, because nor do we need it.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Thank you for such an important status related related article.
Might the efforts to extend airports be an example of Mr. Veblen’s similar warning about the dangers of status seeking “Conspicuous Leisure”?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspicuous_leisure
Would that such world saving concepts were prominent in official education!
Indeed….
Within major airports there is a whole other battle going on with a growth of increasingly extravagant VIP lounges aimed at premium credit card holders. Rather like grouse shoots, this is conspicuous consumption that’s hidden from the rest of us.
A 15 minute report by the excellent Business Daily (BBC World Service).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w3ct5zjw
As wealth has become increasingly concentrated business models are increasingly pivoting to serve their most affluent customers, with new investment coming at a cost to the rest of their customers. In the USA the top 1/10th now earn more that the other 9/10th. You’ll find them in airports.
If you can be accused of pursuing the politics of envy then surely your accusers must support the politics of avarice? It’s the avarice and greed of the proponents of neoliberalism that have got us into this mess – what a legacy we have bestowed on the younger generations: student debt, insecure employment and no affordable housing. I have yet to meet a poor neoliberal.
I totally see what you are getting at.
My interpretation is that I see the raw power of money in action here.
This was someone’s land – maybe they got paid well to surrender it or needed the money?
Maybe smaller homes used to inhabit these plots, and the new homes were built by new owners who demolished the old?
I don’t see the politics of envy because I don’t work like that – I see the politics of something else which you call consumption. I’d call it the politics of ‘selling wealth dreams’ or something like that. Or is it the politics of ‘demonstrative wealth’ or ‘income segregation’ or just ‘inequality’?
I’m not sure that all the rich think like this either. I’m not sure that many of them are conscious of anything other than they can afford to build/buy/service houses like this so they just do it. They buy into exclusivity because we allow that part of the market to exist to service their needs through the provision of services and laws that favour them. And that is an issue for society, not just the rich.
What I also see is an obsession with property as a form of wealth, yet we get hot under the collar about life giving wind farms or hydro electric dams.
An illustration if I may?
There is a beauty spot in North Yorkshire called Roseberry Topping. What I know about North Yorkshire is that under Thatcherism – like a lot of rural communities – they became hot spots for the nouveau riche – the Landrover set – to spend their money and live their dreams as English country squires (Rural Notts and Leicester suffered the same) and getting out of cities.
Rosebery Topping is an impressive 332m high National trust owned outcrop accessed by footpath from a car park. It is rather a beautiful walk (but not outstanding, there are prettier places in Derbyshire where I live to be honest) that already has a large monument to Captain Cook in the area. You have to get there early though as the car park fills quickly. ‘Locals’ at Newton under Roseberry (drive though it see what you think but you might get reported) have objected to visitors parking on the A173 when the car park is full or to avoid parking charges and the police seem to police this. I wonder what the average income of those who live in the ‘village’ is?
On Google maps you can see rather a lot of large houses (new stately homes?) in the ‘village’ and Google won’t let you walk along Church Lane like it does elsewhere. These people have objected – a long with the National Trust – to a proposed wind farm damaging the value of their homes.
My point is this about wealth – it is this unwillingness to live amongst other people, to share – to set themselves apart – that marks out the anti-social element of conspicuous consumption that is the most damaging thing to society. And second only to that is this selling of this to society being like this as a worthy goal which is even more sickening and frankly totally unnecessary.
If we invested in our cities and made them for people to live in and not for cars to get around, that would be a start – something lost on the nouveau riche who commute into our cities in their Chelsea tractors. That is not a policy; it is stupidity.
So I agree with you on this, but that is my ‘take on it’, FWIW.
Appreciated
Apologies for delay in moderation, it was too nice to not go birdwatching
Not at all.
Following you hobby is much more preferable to having to deal with my ramblings.
One of the most obvious conspicuous consumers is Elon Musk. He has spent billions on Space X which is, essentially, a vanity project. The ultimate aim is to land men on Mars and then to colonise the planet.
I am a strong supporter of space exploration and, even, space exploitation. But colonising Mars makes no sense. Musk freely admits it will never make a profit and is just a black hole for money.
In other words, even when you are the richest man in the world, you still seem to want even more conspicuous consumption. It has to be an ego thing; it’s not one of humans more endearing qualities. 🙁
Clearly there is no limit to conspicuous consumption if society allows it.
I like the insights you’re offering her Richard.
I would add this, consumerism promotes desire and dissatisfaction, the very source of suffering. It is the opposite of contentment and equanimity
You have given me an idea…..
I look forward to it
Desire and dissatisfaction are pretty much what ‘The Spirit Level’ covers. Researched and written by two medical doctors it identifies the significant negative health outcomes created by more unequal societies.
They are not medical doctors.
They are epidemiologists.
Very occasionally I don’t fast-forward the adverts. I watch them, shout “bollocks!”, and laugh myself silly.
There are programme–sponsor ads for recliners, electric beds and wheelchairs where the users/consumers are always happy smiling middle class adults who live totally pain-free lives in permanent sunshine and rise effortlessly to their feet wearing their leg braces to sit out on the patio near the pool.
As my spouse grunts and gasps her arthritic way upstairs hanging onto to the bannisters we wonder where we went wrong… we obviously need the latest recliner model to take all the pain away.
I loathe such advertising
As Ghandi said there is room in the world for everyone’s need but not everyone’s greed…..quite how we get back to a situation where people agree to this escapes me
We need a politics of care
It’s unlikely they got planning permission to build these as new dwellings, so they just replaced what was there before within the bounds of planning permission of course.
You should take a walk around some cities in eastern Europe, your viewpoint would be almost universally ridiculed, because they still remember life under communism.
No under the age of 50 remembers communism.
And your inference is profoundly uncomfortable for what it says about you. You don’t care. I do. That has nothing to do with communism, which the linked post to this one makes very clear I am not.
Those houses remind me of many in Abersoch, especially around the harbour, and at the other end of the beach along the track that is behind the cafe that used to be the boatyard where Ruddy Duck (our Seabird sailing boat) overwintered.
Husband went to the caravan a few weeks ago to tidy it up so daughter and family could stay there over Easter. Our neighbour told him that along the track someone is building a house that is getting 3 electric poles… I don’t know exactly what that means, other than that they expect to use a HUGE amount of electricity. One wonders for what!
One house that overlooks the harbour has just sold (subject to contract). They were asking a mere £4million!
https://www.beresfordadams.co.uk/properties/20368060/sales/ABS240130#/
Abersoch can be a bit like that!
Many years ago before the Blair reforms I remember walking past the Palace of Westminster
The House of Commons car park was full of flash cars but by comparison the House of Lords car park looked like Arthur Daley would not give you £250 for the lot
These householders obviously are unaware of climate change and the rising sea levels and storm surges with the melting arctic ice.
University of London also predicts a tsunami from the Canary Island land slip; possibly obliteration of New York and London
As an RAF child of 10 in RAF Steamer Point, British Protectorate of Aden (just before we withdrew) I temember the “Admiral’s House, a prominent circular monstrosity built on an old gun turret atop a volcanic outcrop overlooking the bay.
I imagine a Russian bigwig moved in shortly afterwards.
I’m reminded of the slightly withering snobbish contempt of the aristocracy for the ostentation of “new money” (they’re “trade” and very vulgar).
Stateside had its own version – antebellum vs new money.
Sometimes conspicuous consumption occurs because someone, by dint of their own hard work (not inheritance) has finally achieved financial security and they want to mark the fact.
Reminds me of a car sticker I saw in the mid eighties on an old Morris Minor
4×4 XR CD1 Turbo Intercooler – mine’s better than yours
🙂
Conceivably the unknown people who live in those two houses might also enjoy the views over the sea / estuary.
They might
But that was not why they were designed that way, was it?
Even if it were true, the politics of envy are still better than the politics of greed.
Biologist here:
Stags grow horns that are totally useless for their primary food getting.
The horns take a LOT of energy to grow.
So why do they – grow them?
The biological theory is that when female deer see the horns they get it that this stag must have good genes. It can feed for itself AND have the excess energy to grow those lovely horns. The female finds, through biology, the male stag attractive.
Many believe humans are similar. That a male that shows qualities of having excess, means they have good genes and are likely to be good providers.
So that is why men want to show their excess attributes off, and women find that attractive.
It should be the function of culture to restrict biological urges from destroying society (no sex before marriage, no cousin marriage, fair fights, you know). I would contend that our culture has adopted the economic system we have without putting the necessary restrictions in place to stop biology ruining the planet.
Now THERE’s an possible role for the tax system!
Your photo immediately brought to mind the short story “Drunken Fireworks” from Stephen King’s Bazaar of Bad Dreams. A tale of conspicuous consumption taken too far.