Ooh, this one is a delightfully obvious headline: Doctoral Thesis Says Rich People Spend More on Conspicuous Things
I realize that economics can sometimes lend fresh insight to sociological questions by applying a different, more quantitative, methodology. Still, if there’s something that will make a sociologically-minded person but her or his head against the wall, it would be a statement like this:
Mr. Heffetz said he recently found support for another of Veblen’s pet theories, though: the notion of “vicarious consumption,” meaning the satisfaction someone derives from giving a conspicuous gift or throwing a lavish party. Christmas gifts are 40 percent more visible than the average consumer purchase, Mr. Heffetz calculated.
Why give conspicuous presents? One reason is that gift givers wish to signal that they can afford to be generous. A conspicuous gift transmits that signal to a wider audience than an inconspicuous one.
Or: a more fundamental reason is one that anthropologists have noted is the basis of gift-giving in all societies - that while gifts are about social calculation and reciprocity, they can never be seen as pecuniary. Social conventions arise that enable this pretense. One strategy gift givers use to ensure that gifts aren’t seen as pecuniary is to give gifts that aren’t functional or practical. It’s less that gift givers are using gift giving as conspicuous markers of status for themselves (though they may do so), than that the very logic of gift giving overlaps with the logic of conspicuous consumption.
No comments have been added to this post yet.